Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Teacher Training Colleges

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Education how many new places in the teachers' training colleges it is proposed to provide by 1962.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Twelve thousand.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the fact that Sir Philip Morris, Chairman of the National Advisory Committee on the Training and Supply of Teachers, advised the right hon. Gentleman that 16,000 new places would be necessary by 1962, and the right hon. Gentleman has based it on only 12,000 new places, and as we shall lose 10,000 teachers because of the introduction of the three-year training course, is not the Minister running this very thin, and very close to the need?

Mr. Lloyd: There are many points that could be made, but one short answer is that Sir Philip Morris designed his proposals to get an output of 12,000 teachers a year. With my proposal, and by asking the colleges to take as many as they reasonably can, we hope, in fact, to get 12,000 teachers a year.

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Education how many applicants for places at training colleges were accepted for October, 1958; and how many were rejected.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The Answer is that 14,431 were accepted. I cannot say how many candidates were unsuccessful, since there is no central register covering all the colleges.

Mr. Stewart: Does not each college know how many candidates it has accepted and how many it has rejected, and is it impossible to add them up?

Mr. Lloyd: No. The difficulty is that there is, of course, a number of double applications. As I am advised at the moment, it would not seem right to incur the expenditure of having a central register right from the beginning; although, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a clearing house for those who are not accepted by the first college to which they apply.

Mr. Stewart: Is not it really important that the nation should have some idea of how many potential teachers it is throwing away owing to the fact that training colleges are not large enough at present, which, in itself, is due to the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors to expand them in time?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that it would be right to say that. We must also realise that some candidates are rejected because they do not reach the necessary standard.

Mr. Moss: asked the Minister of Education whether he is satisfied that his proposal to increase the capacity of teachers' training colleges by 12,000 places will secure the abolition of oversize classes by 1968.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The Government's aim is to secure the most rapid reduction possible in the size of classes, but it is impracticable to forecast the exact effect of this policy in particular years.

Mr. Moss: While I do not wish to detract from the advantage of the Minister's present decision, may I ask whether he is aware that his decision to increase training college capacity by 12,000 has been criticised as being good but not good enough, as cutting it very fine and as a grievous mistake? Can the Minister give an assurance that this is an immediate programme which is decided upon and which he is prepared to revise as information becomes available to him?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that it is a good thing that there are elements in the education world who think that any increase in the teacher training colleges is not sufficient. The fact remains that this is the largest permanent increase in the colleges that has ever taken place.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that every training college this autumn has rejected young men and women of calibre who, in normal times, would have gone into the teaching profession and made good teachers? Will he treat his expansion programme as one of utter urgency?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes. We think that the expansion of 50 per cent. is as much as the teacher training colleges can manage in the time available.

Technology Students

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Education how many students for the diploma in technology are works based, and how many college based.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I regret that the information is not available in this precise form.

Mr. Albu: Can the Minister say what response he is receiving from the local education authorities to the request made to them to make grants to students who are to be college based, and what response he is getting from firms who provide the in-works training compared with those students who are to be college trained?

Mr. Lloyd: In general, the response is good, but the larger number are works based.

Unqualified and Temporary Teachers

Mr. Ede: asked the Minister of Education how many unqualified and temporary teachers were in employment in schools maintained by local education authorities on the latest date for which figures are available; and what were the figures twelve months before.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: In March, 1957, 5,661, compared with 5,220 a year earlier.

Mr. Ede: Has the right hon. Gentleman any indication of what the trend has been since March, 1957, and can he say how he proposes to replace these teachers—by persuading them to accept training and qualification, or through the output from the training colleges?

Mr. Lloyd: As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, this really falls into two classes—unqualified teachers, which is a problem of long standing, and

is diminishing by wastage; and the temporary teachers, who are, in the broad sense, student teachers, who are doing a turn in the schools before their training begins.

Mr. Ede: Would the Minister mind answering my supplementary question?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the tendency is to an increase in the number of temporary teachers, and I feel that that is rather a good thing.

Science and Mathematics Teachers

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Education how many posts for teachers of science and mathematics were unfilled at the latest date for which information is available; and how many such posts were filled by teachers not fully qualified for the work.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: In March, 1957, the heads of secondary schools reported that they had about 500 vacancies for graduates and that about 400 posts were not satisfactorily filled.

Mr. Stewart: Would the right hon. Gentleman ensure that this information, which requires the filling up of forms by head teachers, is published in future in the Annual Report of his Ministry?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly examine that point.

U.N.E.S.C.O. Conference, Paris

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Education what delegates have been appointed to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Conference now meeting in Paris.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The Parliamentary Secretary is leading the delegation and Sir Ben Bowen Thomas is deputy leader. The members are Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Professor H. R. Trevor-Roper, Sir William Emrys Williams, Mr. C. R. Allison, Miss F. D. Mackenzie-Whyte, and officials.

Mr. Stewart: May I ask two supplementary questions? First, what arrangements has the right hon. Gentleman previously made for either the House or the public to be informed of the membership of this important delegation? Secondly, since the schools run by local authorities are, after all, the backbone of


this country's educational system, is not it a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not include in the delegation at least one headmaster of such a school?

Mr. Lloyd: There was an official announcement about the membership of the delegation. Of course, I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is difficult, having regard to the size of the delegation, always to fit in every single element in the educational sphere.

Mr. Stewart: I did not ask the Minister to fit in every single element; I merely asked him to find room for one representative of the main element.

Mr. Lloyd: There have been such representatives before, and I have no doubt that there will be again on other occasions.

Mr. Ede: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot find a head teacher, will he at least include a teacher?

Cagthorpe Secondary Modern School, Horncastle

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware that there was a five-form entry into the Horncastle Cagthorpe Secondary Modern School in 1958, and that in all probability a similar five-form entry will take place in 1959; and what special arrangements are being made to provide additional accommodation for at least one class of pupils who will otherwise have no accommodation.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Yes, Sir. I shall consider carefully any arrangements for additional accommodation that the authority may propose.

Commander Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend know how much educational time is lost owing to the fact that this school is situated in three buildings throughout the town? Will he have a special examination made of this matter?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, I will.

Local Authorities (Delegation of Functions)

Mr. MacColl: asked the Minister of Education whether he will make a statement on the progress of his consultations with the representatives of local authorities and divisional executives on

the delegation of education functions; whether he has yet prepared any model schemes of delegation; and when he intends to issue a memorandum of guidance in respect of Section 52 of the Local Government Act, 1958.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: After consulting the local authority associations, I have decided to issue a circular giving guidance on the preparation and operation of schemes of delegation. I hope it will be ready by the end of this month.

Mr. MacColl: Will the Minister make the circular available to hon. Members who want to see the degree of delegation which is proposed? Will he confirm that schemes have to be approved by the end of July next year and that it is urgent that information should be available for the local authorities?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. Perhaps the most convenient arrangement would be for me to send the hon. Gentleman a copy, in view of his Question, and also to place copies in the Library.

Teacher Supply, Essex

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Education the present shortage of teachers in the County of Essex; what steps are being taken to meet the problem of the shortage during the next four years; and what reply he has given to the representations made to him on this matter by the Essex County Council.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The authority's quota for January, 1959, is 10,650 and on 1st October it was 341 short. The Government have announced that the training colleges for teachers are to be expanded by some 50 per cent., and I shall continue to do all I can to help individual authorities get their proper share of the available teachers. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of my reply to the authority's representations.

Mr. Sorensen: While one appreciates the prospective increase in teachers after a number of years, may I point out that that does not help the immediate situation? Has the Minister any ideas as to how the immediate situation can be met?

Mr. Lloyd: Figures show that Essex has gained 331 teachers as compared with the position a year earlier, so the tendency is towards improvement.

Teachers (Superannuation Regulations)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Education what representations he has received on the need for relaxing superannuation Regulations in order to induce more retired teachers to undertake whole or part-time service in schools during the present shortage of teachers.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I have received representations from the Essex local education authority about this and am sending the hon. Member a copy of my reply.

Mr. Sorensen: Would the Minister be so kind as to let me know the contents of it? Would not this be one method by which immediately more teachers could be secured?

Mr. Lloyd: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to examine the letter that I shall send him, because this is a most complicated matter. He might then want to put down another Question.

National Service (Teachers)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Education approximately how many teachers are now in Her Majesty's Forces; and what steps he has taken to secure the immediate release of those teachers.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I do not know the number, but it cannot be large.

Mr. Sorensen: Here again is another means by which immediately one could have a certain number of extra teachers. Under the present circumstances, is not it advisable that teachers in Her Majesty's Forces should be transferred immediately to their ordinary civilian occupation?

Mr. Lloyd: I am discussing with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour a further extension of the deferment arrangements for teachers.

Mr. M. Stewart: Is not it the case that a certain number of people, some of whom might be suitable teachers, are being squeezed out of the Armed Forces by Government policy; and has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that a body representing certain private schools in this country has held a conference to try to attract some of them into teaching? Is not it a pity that the right hon. Gentleman has not shown the same initiative?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir. I think that there are arrangements for watching this matter also on behalf of the State schools.

Students (Maintenance Grants)

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education why the new scales of maintenance grants for training college students in some instances widen, instead of narrowing, the gap between these and comparable university grants.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The new rates were fixed after careful inquiries. I believe that they preserve a proper relationship between the grants of university and training college students and that they will effectively remove hardship.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that all university and college students are of the opinion that whenever the scales are altered the gap between university and training college students should be narrowed? If one takes two comparable figures from the recent adjustments of the maintenance scales, one finds that the gap has been widened rather than narrowed. The Minister's own advisers admit that this is true to a matter of a few pounds, but a few pounds mean a lot to a training college student.

Mr. Lloyd: I should like to discuss that matter with the hon. Gentleman. He knows that the effect of these regulations is, inevitably, rather complex and that they affect different cases differently.

All-age Schools

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education if he will now permit urban local education authorities to include in their building programmes new schools for the elimination of remaining all-age schools.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I would ask the hon. Member to await the White Paper.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that the one thing the House agrees about in education is that the first and most urgent reform is to get rid of all-age schools if we are to have real secondary education for our children? Is he also aware that there are still twenty authorities where over 20 per cent. of the children are being educated in all-age schools? While the rural programme which his predecessor


started means in time the abolition of all-age schools in the countryside, there are still towns where over 40 per cent. of the children are still in all-age schools.

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of those facts, and I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Proposed Comprehensive School, Kirkby-in-Ashfield

Mr. Warbey: asked the Minister of Education whether he will now give his approval to the inclusion of the proposed comprehensive secondary school at Kirkby-in-Ashfield in the Nottinghamshire Education Committee's school building programme for 1959–60.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Warbey: Is the Minister aware that this reply will be received with very great disappointment in my constituency, in view of the promises made in the Queen's Speech, with which it does not accord, and in view of the fact that this school is urgently required to meet the expanding needs of the area and to replace an existing temporary school which, by modern standards, is totally inadequate?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman referred to a passage in the Queen's Speech. Of course, the White Paper has not yet been published.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Hong Kong Cotton (United Kingdom Imports)

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the negotiations between the Cotton Board and manufacturing interests in Hong Kong for a limitation of cotton imports into the United Kingdom.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): The Hong Kong negotiating committee met on Tuesday to consider the Cotton Board's proposals. After the meeting it issued a statement that it considered the proposals formed a reasonable basis for agreement but that a number of technical points required clarification. I understand that the committee is to meet again tomorrow.

Mr. Jay: Would the President agree that one of the main influences inducing the Hong Kong interests to reach agreement has been the knowledge that a Labour Government here would do something about it any way? Can he also say whether the recent restrictions on Hong Kong goods imposed by the French Government have added to these difficulties?

Sir D. Eccles: In answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I would say that I hope not. I hope that the Hong Kong people see, as we do, that a voluntary agreement would be in the best interests of both their industry and Lancashire's. In regard to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question, we have made vigorous representations to the French Government on the basis of the facts as we know them, but we are not absolutely sure that we yet have the full facts.

Textile Industry

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the textile industry and its current difficulties; and what action is being taken to counteract these.

Sir D. Eccles: The Government are deeply concerned with these difficulties, as my hon. Friend will see from my speech in last Tuesday's debate.

Sir A. V. Harvey: While I appreciate the interest that my right hon. Friend has taken in this matter, may I ask him to consider another aspect of the problem, that at places like Macclesfield and Congleton, where the local authorities have acquired industrial sites, they are getting little support from his Department to bring in new industries? If I bring such cases to my right hon. Friend's notice, will he do what he can to help?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir, I will.

Mr. H. Hynd: As the Minister's speech on Tuesday, to which he has referred, expressed nothing but pious hopes—

Sir A. V. Harvey: No.

Mr. Hynd: —oh, yes. What he said, in effect, was that he hoped the increase in purchasing power would lead to more textiles being bought. Can the right hon.


Gentleman give something more concrete than that in the way of immediate help to the cotton textile industry?

Sir D. Eccles: The immediate help will be the agreements with the Asian industries, if they are made. After that, as I said in my speech, the Government are very willing to discuss with the Lancashire industry any long-term proposals that the industry may have for stabilising itself in the future.

Sir J. Barlow: While I appreciate what my right hon. Friend said this week in his speech, may I ask whether he can say that the Government will look favourably upon the idea of redundancy schemes in the various sections of the cotton industry? Would they be likely to receive Government approval?

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir. I should have to look at any such proposals with great care before I could give an opinion.

Mr. Hirst: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the difficulties being experienced in the wool textile industry, what steps he is taking to explore with the trade organisations especially concerned avenues of encouraging more trade; and whether, to that end, he is still in close touch with the authorities in both Canada and the United States of America with a view to securing more favourable import terms for British wool textiles.

Sir D. Eccles: My hon. Friend the Minister of State recently discussed with representatives of the industry the main difficulties confronting them in their export markets. I am in close touch with the Canadian and United States authorities and am pressing both to remove disabilities against our goods.

Mr. Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while the woollen textile industry appreciates the relatively narrow limits within which he can assist the trade, it does view with very great concern the situation arising over the Canadian and United States' import tariff quotas? I hope that he will bear in mind that at this time of year we are reaching the vital period and that negotiations will be coming to a head? I hope that he will bear this in mind on every possible occasion.

Sir D. Eccles: Yes. I want to do all I can. The House may be interested to know that the Canadian Finance Minister has just told me that it is the firm intention of his Government to restore the margins of preference formerly enjoyed by the United Kingdom.

Exports (Embargo List)

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he has retained electronic computers and high speed cinematograph cameras on the embargo list of goods not for export to China, Russia and other Communist countries.

Sir D. Eccles: I regret I cannot give this information as the proceedings of the Paris Group are confidential. But many types of electronic computers and high speed cameras are now free from embargo.

Mr. Rankin: The types which, as the Minister knows, I am referring to are on the embargo list. Does he agree that at the moment this country of ours possesses a lead of from four to five years over any other nation in the manufacture of these products? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, while we may keep these methods secret now, in due course advancing knowledge will cause us to share those secrets with the rest of the world, with the result that in the end we lose the secret and also what would now be a good market?

Sir D. Eccles: I agree with the hon. Member that our electronics industry is second to none. The hon. Member may, however, have seen references in the public Press to the effect that some of these computers are needed in connection with rocket missiles.

North-Eastern Trading Estates Limited

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many people, men and women, respectively, were employed in the factories administered by the North-Eastern Trading Estates Limited on the latest available date.

Sir D. Eccles: At the end of September, 1958, 21,638 men and boys and 28,973 women and girls, making a total of 50,611, were employed in these factories.

Mr. Willey: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that while we appreciate that the Government have many other anxieties, this continued fall in employment, particularly among men, in these Government factories is causing concern and that we in the North-East feel that the Government are quite indifferent to the interests of the North-East Development Area?

Sir D. Eccles: I assure the hon. Member that we are not indifferent to the North-East area and that we are glad to see that in the area as a whole there is a high rate of employment.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware, however, that there are still three factories on Tees-side which have been standing empty for a long time and that there seems to be great complacency about trying to find tenants for them?

Sir D. Eccles: We are trying to find tenants for them.

Mr. Popplewell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain firms are leaving the North-East and coming back south again and that a retraction is taking place? Will he carefully watch developments in that part of the country, which at the moment appears to be rather neglected?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, I will. When I was in the Lowlands of Scotland the other day, it was complained to me that a Scottish firm was leaving the Lowlands and going to the North-East Coast.

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many people, men and women, respectively, were employed in the factories, in Sunderland, administered by the North-Eastern Trading Estates Limited on the latest available date.

Sir D. Eccles: At the end of September, 1958, 2,252 men and boys and 2,796 women and girls, making a total of 5,048, were employed in these factories.

Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that these figures are also disturbing? Has he seen the suggestion made by the Financial Times that, in view of the prospects for shipbuilding, the Government ought now to consider their Development Area policy regarding the shipbuilding areas? Will

the President of the Board of Trade see that this is instigated immediately?

Sir D. Eccles: The figures are, in fact, a decrease of fourteen over the last four months—more or less stable. On the question whether the outlook for shipbuilding justifies the action proposed in the newspaper quoted by the hon. Member, I shall have to think about that.

New Industries, Stoke-on-Trent

Dr. Stross: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the establishment of new industrial enterprises in Stoke-on-Trent.

Sir D. Eccles: I have nothing new to report but the needs of North Staffordshire are brought to the attention of suitable firms.

Dr. Stross: Can the President give an assurance that he will give this matter high priority? Is he aware that the closing down of the great Royal Ordnance Factory at Swynnerton and the diversion of the extension of the Michelin factory elsewhere, and the imposition of a 30 per cent. Purchase Tax three years ago, has wounded this area considerably and something ought now to be done about it with great energy?

Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Member may be interested to know that, of more than 2,000 workers at Swynnerton, only 69 are on the unemployment register, and that the numbers of wholly unemployed in October were 2·5 per cent., which included an unusual number who were temporarily stopped on the day of the count.

Weights and Measures (Legislation)

Sir J. Duncan: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations of the Committee on Weights and Measures Legislation which reported in 1951; and what further steps to implement their recommendations are contemplated in the present Session of Parliament.

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the President of the Board of Trade what further implementation of the recommendations of the Hodgson Committee on Weights and Measures is proposed for the present Session.

Mrs. Slater: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to introduce legislation to implement the Hodgson Report.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): Many trade and consumer organisations have been consulted about the Committee's recommendations and a Weights and Measures Bill will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time permits. My right hon. Friend intends to make regulations to deal with part of the field, but regrets that this will take a little more time.

Sir J. Duncan: Does my hon. Friend, whom I congratulate on answering his first Parliamentary Questions, know that the Angus Joint Weights and Measures Committee has some anxiety regarding the packaging of food, measures for drink and the tolerances for petrol pumps? Are these matters among the regulations which are to be dealt with this Session?

Mr. Rodgers: The regulations will be concerned with the retail sale of food and the marking of pre-packed foods. They will not include petrol.

Mrs. Slater: In view of the fact that this Report was published in 1951 and that there is growing concern by house-wives as well as by retailers on the question of packaged goods other than foods, could not the Government speed up this legislation with the same haste as they speeded up the Bill which we discussed yesterday?

Mr. Rodgers: I realise that the Hodgson Committee reported in 1951; but its recommendations were very detailed and in many cases they presupposed considerable consultation. We have had to consult over ninety organisations and some of the consultations are still in progress.

Miss Burton: Without wishing to embarrass the Parliamentary Secretary on his first day at the Box, may I ask whether he realises that his Answer is no advance whatever on the one given to me last June? Does he hope that by next week, when I have a Question down, we might get a stage further?

Mr. Rodgers: I cannot anticipate the date on which we will be able to introduce the regulations.

Sir F. Medlicott: Would it be correct to assume that the trade organisations concerned have, in fact, given a great deal of co-operation and information?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes. In most cases that is entirely true.

Subliminal Techniques

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the dangers of the use of subliminal techniques for advertising and other purposes; and if he will take steps to ban their use.

Sir D. Eccles: As I understand it, these techniques can be used in cinemas and on the television. Their use in cinemas would be subject to the local licensing authority, and as regards television. I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General to the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards).

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very welcome lead given by the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, which has declared these sinister techniques professionally unacceptable? Will he follow that lead and ban these techniques from all kinds of communication? Further to that, can he say what is being done about the importation of American horror films which use these techniques?

Sir D. Eccles: It is really not the Board of Trade's responsibility to ban these techniques from all forms of communication. I think my responsibility rests probably on the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, which referred to the import of films. If they contain these practices and they are found to be bad, we certainly shall see what can be done about it.

Mr. Jay: Are these subliminal techniques being used by the Prime Minister's personal advertising staff?

Sir D. Eccles: My right hon. Friend has no need of any extraordinary techniques.

British Institute of Management

Mr. Albu: asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of the grant-in-aid made to the British Institute


of Management in each year since its foundation; and whether it is now proposed to continue this grant.

Sir D. Eccles: As the Answer to the first part of the Question contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Government have told the Institute that they are prepared, on certain conditions, and subject to Parliamentary approval, to make a final grant of £5,000 during the financial year 1959–60.

Mr. Albu: Can the President of the Board of Trade confirm that this organisation which for the last ten years has been preaching better management and methods to British industry has had to call in the organisation and methods department of a private firm to overhaul its own administration and structure, and are he and the Prime Minister flattered by having recently been made honorary fellows of the Institute?

Sir D. Eccles: I agree that the Institute has had a certain amount of internal difficulties. Of course, it was always the case that it knew that Government grants would taper off. I think they have continued rather longer than was first expected. I hope it will now be able to stand on its own feet. Perhaps the honorary fellowships of the Prime Minister and myself will help.

Following is the answer:


PAYMENTS MADE TO THE BRITISH INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE GOVERNMENT GRANT-IN-AID



£


1946–47
536


1947–48
15,415


1948–49
59,059


1949–50
60,000


1950–51
75,000*


1951–52
78,000*


1952–53
50,000


1953–54
50,000


1954–55
44,250


1955–56
38,000


1956–57
29,980


1957–58
—


1958–59
10,000


(* Includes a capital grant of £20,000.)




IN ADDITION TO THE GRANT-IN-AID, THE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE BRITISH INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT FROM CONDITIONAL AID FUNDS



£


1953–54
11,195


1954–55
24,461


1955–56
28,175


1956–57
4,000


1957–58
15,000


1958–59
6,125 (to date)

Isle of Sheppey

Mr. P. Wells: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the complete absence of tenders for Her Majesty's Dockyard, Sheerness, he will now include the Isle of Sheppey as an area ranking for assistance under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act.

Sir D. Eccles: The Admiralty is negotiating directly with certain firms which have shown an interest. If, unfortunately, the employment situation makes it necessary the island will be added to the list.

Chinchilla Breeding (Advertisements)

Mr. Iremonger: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to advertisements by companies guaranteeing rapid and large returns to small savers who invest in breeding chinchillas; and if he will institute an enquiry into the activities of these advertisers with special reference, firstly, to the methods of grading chinchilla fur recognised by the fur trade, as compared with the methods envisaged by advertisers who are not members of the British Fur Breeders' Association and, secondly, to the state of the market for breeding chinchillas and for pelts.

Sir D. Eccles: I have just received copies of these advertisements and it will take a little time to consider them.

Mr. Iremonger: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he will consider some means by which the resources of his Department could be brought to bear on what, in the case of some of these get-rich-quick advertisements, might prove on investigation to contain an element of fraud?

Sir D. Eccles: I have only just received these advertisements, and as far as I can see on preliminary investigation the question turns on whether it is true to say that these hardy vegetarian rodents are prolific breeders or not.

Development Areas (Factory Construction)

Mr. Marquand: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many new factories are now under construction in Development Areas.

Sir D. Eccles: At the end of September, 218 factories and factory extensions for manufacturing industry were under construction in the Development Areas.

Mr. Marquand: Does the right hon. Gentleman think, in view of the serious increase in unemployment in the Development Areas in recent months, that this is a sufficient figure? If he does not think it is sufficient, has he plans to increase the number rapidly? Is he aware that the steel industry on Teesside stands ready at short notice to provide him with all the constructional steel he needs to multiply the factory programme several times?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, I am looking into the question whether we can get some of our tenants in those areas to extend their factories.

Mr. Popplewell: How many are in the North-East?

Sir D. Eccles: The North-East is easily the best. It has 80 out of 218.

Mr. Marquand: In view of his wartime experience of this, will the right hon. Gentleman consider not only the extension of existing factories but the building of advance factories?

Sir D. Eccles: I would if I thought that would be really useful, but in view of the present state of factory premises, which is very different from what it was just after the war, I think it is better to find a firm which wants a factory and to build the type of factory it wants.

Imported Timber (Monopolies Commission Report)

Mr. Oram: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take with respect to the Report of the Monopolies Commission on imported timber.

Sir D. Eccles: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is meeting the Timber Trade Federation in the near future to hear representations about the Commission's findings. In the meantime I cannot make a statement.

Mr. Oram: Is not it the case that the original reference of this subject was as long ago as 1951, and was not it pretty clear quite early that the traders in imported timber intended to resist putting

their house in order voluntarily? Therefore, is not it high time that an order was made by the President of the Board of Trade?

Sir D. Eccles: There are certain difficult aspects of this question, and I have asked the Parliamentary Secretary to discuss them fully with the timber trade. If it had not been for the change in the Parliamentary Secretaryship, I think we should have been able to have given an answer now.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

International Monetary Fund and World Bank (Conference)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the conference of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank at New Delhi.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The hon. Member will now have seen my right hon. Friend's statement during the debate on the Address on 3rd November.

Mr. Brockway: Yes. I did not hear it, but I read that statement with very great interest. In view of the fact that the executive directors of the International Monetary Fund are not to meet until the end of this year, and that after that Parliamentary and Congressional approval, involving very great delay, will have to be given to their recommendations regarding the increased quotas, will the Government give an example of rapid action for these urgent needs of the under-developed countries?

Mr. Erroll: The matter is being considered urgently by the respective executive boards, and I think we should rely on their work at this stage.

British Museum Reading Room

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make the necessary financial provision to enable the British Museum Reading Room to remain open until 10 p.m. on week days.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): No, Sir.

Mr. Robinson: What is the point of building the greatest storehouse of knowledge in the word and then denying access to it by almost everyone who is in normal full-time employment? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the equivalent library in Moscow is open until midnight every night of the week, and that this suggestion would cost some £30,000 a year? Cannot we do better than that?

Mr. Simon: No. It would cost, I am advised, about £50,000 a year and would need 69 extra staff. The trustees would like to keep the Library open until 10 o'clock every evening, but it is not by any means very high on their list of priorities. There are other things they need to do more at the moment.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Would the Financial Secretary consider this again? Is not the British Museum one of the greatest libraries in the world and of great prestige value to this nation? Is not it highly desirable that foreign students as well as our own should be able to study there in the evenings?

Mr. Simon: Of course, it is perfectly true that this is one of the greatest libraries in the world. On the other hand, there are many competing claims on the trustees, and they cannot place this one highest on the list of things they want to do at the moment.

Mr. Ede: Does the Minister's answer to that supplementary question mean that the trustees can hope that some of their applications to him will be granted?

Mr. Simon: The right hon. Gentleman is a trustee. I do not think that he should necessarily make that inference, but if he has anything specifically in mind perhaps he will communicate with me.

Mr. Robinson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Travel Abroad (Currency Allowance)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he has not increased the travel allowance beyond £100 for the period November, 1958, to November, 1959, for British subjects going abroad.

Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend would like to ease the currency restrictions on travel abroad as soon as possible, but he has also to consider other claims on our resources.

Mr. Teeling: While appreciating that, may I ask whether my hon. Friend realises what a bad impression it gives abroad that now, with all the money that we are supposed to have in our present financial position, it is still impossible for the ordinary man in the street or the businessman to get more than £100 unless he receives special permission?

Mr. Erroll: My hon. Friend should remember the correspondingly good impression which has been created by our assumption of a number of other commitments.

Mr. Teeling: While fully realising what my hon. Friend has said, but thinking that it ought to be discussed on the Adjournment, I wish to give notice that I hope to have the opportunity of raising the matter again.

Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance)

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what help has been given up till now, under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, to firms seeking to establish factories in areas of specially high unemployment.

Mr. Erroll: Since the Act came into operation 191 preliminary inquiries have resulted in 32 firm and eligible applications. Of these, 2 are being accepted, I has been rejected and the remaining 29 are still being examined.

Purchase Tax (Pottery)

Dr. Stross: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what requests he has received from the British Pottery Manufacturers Federation that he should abolish the 15 per cent. Purchase Tax on pottery; and whether, in view of unemployment and short-time working in north Staffordshire, he will abolish the tax without delay.

Mr. Erroll: The Federation recently wrote to my right hon. Friend and in reply he has assured it that he will keep in mind the information it sent. There is nothing I can add to that reply.

Dr. Stross: Can the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend remember that the original imposition of the tax caused a great deal of harm and did not bring in the revenue which it was thought it would produce? Would not it be a good thing to abolish now a tax which was stupid and which did very little good but a great deal of harm?

Mr. Erroll: I will convey what the hon. Member has said to my right hon. Friend.

Income Tax (Advertising Expenditure)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, under his regulations, advertisements forming part of a campaign against public ownership have been allowed to firms as a trading expense to be set against taxable income.

Mr. Simon: An allowance for expenditure of this kind is only made where satisfies the ordinary Schedule D expenses rule, that is, that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the taxpayer's trade and was not of a capital nature.

Mr. Allaun: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman think that it is stretching matters a bit to claim that expenditure on this highly political campaign is expenditure wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the company's trade? Secondly, will he consider requiring all public limited companies to state separately in their public accounts expenditure of a political nature?

Mr. Simon: In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, I would say that the accounts in question have not yet been carried in to the Inland Revenue; the point has not, therefore, yet arisen whether such expenses are deductible or not. As I told the hon. Member in reply to a Question earlier this year, it does not necessarily follow from the Tate and Lyle case that expenses would be deductible. As to the second part of his supplementary question, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to put a Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Strauss: If it is found on examination that these expenses for political purposes are deductible, and as this is obviously contrary to the general public

interest, may we have an assurance that steps will be taken by the Government to ensure that such expenses shall not be deductible for tax purposes?

Mr. Simon: The general rule is that money which is laid out for political purposes is not a deductible expense.

Mr. Marquand: May we have an assurance that Richard Thomas and Baldwins, and other firms which still remain in national ownership, are lot engaging in this campaign?

Mr. Simon: No, Sir. I cannot discuss the affairs of any individual taxpaying concern.

Mr. Gough: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? I have risen each time, but at least two of the supplementary questions on this highly contentious matter have been put by Privy Councillors. I wish to ask a question.

Mr. Speaker: This is not a debate. The hon. Member should put a Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the large sums now being paid by steel companies out of what would otherwise be taxable profits, for a campaign against steel nationalisation, if he will subject such expenditure to tax.

Mr. Simon: There is a rigid rule against the disclosure of the details of the tax liabilities of individual concerns. In these circumstances, I can neither confirm nor deny the assumptions that underlie the hon. Member's Question. On the substance of the matter, I have nothing to add to my Answer to his previous Question.

Mr. Allaun: If these very large sums had been donated directly to the Conservative Party for a similar campaign against public ownership, would not they then have been subject to tax?

Mr. Simon: That seems to me both hypothetical and to be referring to the affairs of an individual taxpayer.

Mr. Gough: Would my hon. and learned Friend agree, in respect of both this and the previous Question, that an insurance premium against burglary is a perfectly satisfactory payment?

Cohen Report

Mr. Rankin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has studied the Cohen Report; and if he is now prepared to say whether he accepts the view of the Council that if price inflation is to be averted the pressure for goods and labour must be restricted.

Mr. Erroll: Yes, Sir. In answer to the second part of the Question, post-war experience of periods of peak demand provides substance for the Council's view, but my right hon. Friend does not despair of securing the co-operation of all concerned in finding a middle way.

Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister has already paid tribute to the good luck which has favoured him and his Government in achieving the present state of favourable reserves? Will he now pay tribute to the help which he has received from the working class, through unemployment created by his policies?

Mr. Erroll: I think that we should all be glad to pay tribute to everybody concerned for work that has been done.

Post-war Credits

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the need for re-expansion of production and employment, he will speed up the repayment of post-war credits.

Mr. Erroll: Last Monday my right hon. Friend reviewed the steps already taken by the Government to stimulate the resumption of expansion, and assured the House that we shall continue to take such action as the situation demands. I have nothing to add to that statement.

Mr. Jay: But as British industry still has more slack capacity than at any time since the war, would not this be a very suitable moment for relaxation of post-war credits?

Mr. Erroll: No, Sir, I do not think so.

Dame Irene Ward: In this new period of expansion when money is to be spent in stimulating industry, may I ask my hon. Friend whether any of that money will come to the shipbuilding and shipping areas and to the fishing ports, or is it all to go to general industry? We should like a little share of it, please.

Mr. Erroll: I hardly think that supplementary question arises out of the main Question.

Mr. Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the hardships experienced by many to whom the State owes money under the postwar credit scheme, he will take steps to make some of this money available in such cases.

Mr. Simon: I am afraid the term "hardship" might cover so many widely differing types of case that it could not be adopted as a criterion for repayment of post-war credits.

Mr. Janner: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider the question of dealing with cases of financial embarrassment? Does not he consider it highly unfair that an individual who is financially embarrassed should be owed money by the Government while he himself may be put in a very serious position owing to the fact that he cannot meet his current debts? Cannot the hon. and learned Gentleman devise some way of dealing with that position?

Mr. Simon: One comes across many cases of the sort which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned which are bound to arouse sympathy. The question has been examined from this angle by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it has been quite impossible to find a satisfactory criterion.

Mrs. L. Jeger: Would not the Minister agree that he could add administrative economy to sympathy if he would repay post-war credits especially to widows on the death of their husbands? Is not it a fact that there is considerable administrative action involved in passing these credits through probate and that it would be a convenient opportunity to make repayment instead of, as at present, charging widows death duties on their husbands' post-war credits which they have not got?

Mr. Simon: May I first dispute the assumption in the last part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question? Death duties are not payable on post-war credits. As regards the other point, any repayment of post-war credits leads to an administrative saving but I am sure the hon. Lady will see that if one said merely


that, on the ground of hardship, widows should be repaid on the death of the husbands there would be very many much harder cases which would be left outside.

Mr. E. Fletcher: May we take it that the Minister now recognises that there is a great deal of hardship resulting from the failure to repay post-war credits? Will not he recognise that the reason given previously for having failed to deal with this problem was the general state of the Exchequer? Now, however, that we are moving into a period in which the Government are anxious to give away money and to increase spending power, is not this an ideal opportunity for tackling this problem again and relaxing the existing system in order to overcome these large numbers of individual cases of hardship?

Mr. Simon: No, Sir. The question of repayment on the ground of hardship has been considered on its merits and quite irrespective of the desirability of inflationary or deflationary moves. I know the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) will bear me out that it has been found quite impracticable.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my hon. and learned Friend give an undertaking that when payments are due on a given date—legitimate payments—he will liven up his Department to pay them? Recently I have had cases of repayment being six months overdue, when poor people could not get their money. Will the Minister issue an instruction that these matters are to be dealt with promptly and efficiently?

Mr. Simon: The Inland Revenue makes every attempt to deal with repayment as rapidly as possible, but in some cases there is delay in the making of the claims. In other cases the certificates have been lost, and considerable trouble is taken in the Inland Revenue to find copies.

National Gallery and Tate Gallery (Purchasing Grants)

Dr. Stross: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to increase the purchasing grants of the National and Tate Galleries to a level that will bear some relationship to the rising cost of works of art and to the dignity and value of these institutions.

Mr. Simon: My right hon. Friend has this matter under consideration.

Dr. Stross: When the Minister considers it, will he bear in mind that it is embarrassing to realise that a great institution like the National Gallery would have to put aside its purchasing grant for about twenty years to buy one reasonably good Cezanne, that this is humiliating, and that the trustees cannot possibly carry out their obligations to the country?

Mr. Simon: The current prices of pictures is, of course, one of the matters that my right hon. Friend will take into account. I think I should point out that the annual purchase grants are by no means the sole source of public revenue for the galleries. For example, in the last three or four years about £500,000 of public money has been found for National Gallery acquisitions by way of special grant and out of the National Land Fund.

Sir F. Medlicott: Before any more money is spent on the buying of fresh pictures, will my hon. and learned Friend make sure that many of the pictures now stored in the basements, including most of the pictures in the Lane bequest, are exhibited and the spending of further public money deferred in the meantime?

Mr. Simon: I do not think any of the Lane pictures are not on view. I think I am right in saying that the trustees have plans to make the reserve collection more widely available.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman see that his right hon. Friend gives this matter not only consideration, but very urgent consideration? Although from time to time we vote special grants of money to the national collections, the fact that the galleries have to depend upon special Votes makes it impossible to plan expansion of the collections, and of course it is essential that the gaps should be filled, and filled on a planned basis.

ATOMIC REACTORS, WINDCALE

Mr. Mason: asked the Prime Minister what consideration has been given to the problem of safely disposing of the Windscale atomic reactors; and to what extent Her Majesty's Government


have considered policy for the future dismantling of atomic power stations in the event of similar accidents or as their useful life terminates.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The Atomic Energy Authority has decided to seal the concrete vaults surrounding the cores in the Wind-scale reactors. Damage to some of the fuel elements in Pile No. 1 prevents their removal, but the remainder will be removed and used again, as will all the fuel elements from Pile No. 2. The sealed vaults will ensure against any exterior hazard.
The reactor buildings will be used by the Authority for other purposes for which they are suitable.
It does not seem necessary to make any further plans at present.

Mr. Mason: Can the Prime Minister say whether, now that the nuclear furnaces are to be derelict and abandoned, any estimate has been made of how long they must stand before they can be safely dismantled and disposed of? Secondly, has the Atomic Energy Authority given any consideration to designing nuclear power stations with the nuclear furnaces sited underground?

The Prime Minister: These are rather technical matters. I should prefer not to commit myself, in an answer to a supplementary question, on these points, but if the hon. Member will put a Question on the Order Paper or would like me to write to him about it, I will do my best to find out the precise technical reply.

Mr. Gaitskell: I think that we must all accept that accidents of this kind are liable to happen in pioneer work in connection with atomic energy. Can the Prime Minister give us any idea of what the loss has been as a result of closing down these reactors?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that a very full inquiry was made and that the result of all that has been published. If he will put on the Order Paper a Question about the figure of cost, I will, of course, reply to it.

BRITISH MILITARY OPERATIONS, ARABIAN PENINSULA

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now lay a White Paper concerning the military operations conducted by members of the British Armed Forces in the Arabian Peninsula since the month of May, 1955, until today.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think any useful purpose would be served at present.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the Prime Minister confirm the report in The Times that the movement which our land forces were supposed to have suppressed last August is now in full control of Oman again? Does not that show that our intervention is not welcomed by the people of the territory? Since sporadic fighting has been going on in the Arabian peninsula for three years, ought not hon. Members to have full information about it in a White Paper?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; the campaign in Oman in 1957 was brought to a conclusion. There have been a number of isolated incidents during the last year or two, most of them along the borders of the Aden Protectorate, but I do not think that there would be any advantage in cataloguing those in a White Paper.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If I send the Prime Minister a list of the incidents which have been referred to in newspaper reports and in Answers to Questions, mostly related, will he consider them? Further, is it right that hon. Members should have to depend upon newspaper reports in matters important enough to involve the use of armed force?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; I really do not think I can give that assurance. I indicated in some correspondence I had with the right hon. Gentleman this summer that since the campaign in the Oman was finished, there was no purpose in publishing a report. As I say, there are a number of areas where these troubles have occurred but, broadly speaking, they are isolated and there is not much purpose in trying to catalogue them.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am very much obliged for the courtesy of the Prime Minister and for the very kind way in which he wrote to me during the Summer Recess, but may I remind him of what he said in his letter to me, namely, that the operations were not yet complete and that therefore lessons could not be drawn from what had happened. Since operations have been going on for three years, ought not hon. Members to have a full picture of what has happened?

The Prime Minister: These are very minor operations, similar to those of which we had considerable experience in the old days. They are somewhat like the old border problems of India. Therefore, I would not have thought this was necessary; but, if the right hon. Gentleman would like to speak to me about it, I will certainly discuss the matter with him. I have nothing to hide from the House, and I will see whether he can persuade me that it would be valuable to the House to publish such a White Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA

Constitutional Development

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals have been made by the Uganda Government for a constitutional committee to investigate and discuss future constitutional developments in the protectorate.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): The Governor will be making an announcement on this subject at the first meeting of the new Legislative Council and I have no statement to make at present.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the Under-Secretary bear in mind the advisability of the constitutional committee consulting growing Buganda opinion which is not represented by either the Kabaka or the Buganda Lukiko?

Mr. Profumo: No, Sir; I am not prepared to anticipate the Governor's announcement.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND

Africans (Restriction Orders)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Africans in Nyasaland have their freedom

of movement limited by restriction orders; and for what reasons.

Mr. Profumo: Three, Sir. The movement of these Africans has been restricted because they sought to undermine established native authorities and, in one case, because he also constituted a general threat to peace and good order.

Mr. Stonehouse: Why is the freedom of these men being restricted in this way? If they are guilty of any crime, why are not charges brought against them?

Mr. Profumo: I think the hon. Member knows quite well that the three people were convicted and sentenced. They are now restricted in accordance with proper legislation so that they shall not get up to their old tricks again.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 10TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Agriculture (Small Farmers) Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Consideration of a Motion to refer the Building (Scotland) Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee for Second Reading.
Report stage of the Ways and Means Resolution relating to Armed Forces Housing Loans, when the Bill will be brought in.
TUESDAY, 11TH NOVEMBER—A debate will take place on Provision for Old Age, which will arise on a Government Motion welcoming the White Paper.
WEDNESDAY, 12TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
THURSDAY, 13TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
FRIDAY, 14TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Development of Inventions Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Second Reading of the Armed Forces Housing Loans Bill.
In regard to business today, we propose to suspend the rule for the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and the Committee stage of the Money Resolution. We hope that it will be agreeable to the House for us to obtain these items so that Amendments can be tabled for the Committee stage.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Prime Minister make arrangements for an early debate on the Grigg Report, since I understand that it will not be possible to discuss the contents of this important Report during the debate today? Also, will he consider, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland, the desirability of a separate Town and Country Planning Bill for Scotland, since it is evident that the Bill as at present drafted will lead to great confusion because of the number of subsections which deal with Scotland? I believe that it would be for the convenience of everybody if the Scottish sections could be taken out and presented in a separate Bill.

The Prime Minister: I understand that Mr. Speaker has ruled that it would not be in order to discuss the Grigg Report on this immediate occasion. Therefore, perhaps we should arrange through the usual channels what would be a convenient opportunity for discussing it.
The matter of the Town and Country Planning Bill was considered by the Government, and it was decided that it would be more convenient to have a single Bill and to include Scotland within its scope.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether Tuesday's debate, on provision for old age, will be an absolutely free debate, and whether the whole question of those living on small fixed incomes can be raised? Does my right hon. Friend realise that I am feeling in a very belligerent mood about these people, because nothing has been done about them for a very long time? May we have a free vote?

The Prime Minister: The debate arises by agreement between the Opposition and ourselves that it would be convenient to have a day's debate on the White Paper, and there will be a Motion welcoming the White Paper. Whether all

the points that my hon. Friend has in mind will be in order in that debate is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and not for me.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a private Member and I have not agreed with the Opposition, and I do not agree with them, and I want to know whether my side is going to stand up for me.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

The Prime Minister: I would always stand up for my hon. Friend in any way consistent with the rules of order.

Mr. D. Johnston: Is the Prime Minister aware that since the publication of the Town and Country Planning Bill there has been considerable protest in the Scottish Press at the method of drafting the Bill and that it has been suggested that the method is a contravention of the recommendations of the Balfour Committee, which the Government accepted some years ago?

The Prime Minister: That matter was considered, but the conclusion reached was the one which I have stated to the House.

Mr. Mitchison: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman could make it clear why this practice is increasing. Ever since the Rent Act it has been getting worse and worse. We get Scots in Committee having to listen to a lot of English stuff that does not concern them and Englishmen having to listen to a lot of Scots stuff that does not concern them, and it is wasting everybody's time. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman put it right in this instance?

The Prime Minister: My recollection of Rent Bills is that we have to listen to quite a lot of stuff anyway. I am surprised that this point has been raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. We have not heard very much about the Rent Act lately.

Miss Herbison: Will the Prime Minister have consultations with the Secretary of State for Scotland? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Commission which reported in 1954 made a very strong recommendation that where legislation was controversial there ought to


be a separate Bill for Scotland? Surely he will take into consideration the very great complaints which have come particularly from the legal profession in Scotland about the Scottish part being taken in conjunction with the English part. I beg him to have the matter reconsidered.

The Prime Minister: With regard to the drafting of the Bill and what should be in it, the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken full part during the whole preparation, but, as I said, it was considered, on the whole, to be more satisfactory to treat the subject in a single Bill.

Mr. H. Morrison: Does the Prime Minister intend to afford further facilities for a debate about the proposed inquiry into the use of official machinery for the purpose of disseminating party propaganda, as was disclosed in the debate yesterday? Also, does he think it right, as Ministers are involved, and as there may be political questions, that a high civil servant, Sir Norman Brook, for whom I have the highest respect, should he in charge of the inquiry, or does he think he ought to institute an outside, independent inquiry?

The Prime Minister: When I heard of this matter last night I decided that the best immediate way to deal with it was to ask Sir Norman Brook to make a report on the allegations made against members of the Civil Service. I think that it w ill be very quickly completed, and when I receive it I shall make a statement upon it. I think that that would be the time to consider whether any further action or any wider form of inquiry was required.

Mr. J. Harvey: Can my right hon. Friend hold out any hope of an early opportunity for the House to discuss the Report of the Royal Commission on Common Land, bearing in mind that hon. Members on both sides of the House have constituents much interested in recommendations made in the Report for dealing with the problems created by animals straying into urban areas from forests and other places?

The Prime Minister: I recognise the importance of the Report, and we will certainly see whether it will be possible to

have a discussion. It occurs to me that it might be a suitable subject for a Private Member's Motion.

Mr. Rankin: May I appeal to the Prime Minister, as a man with some Scottish blood in his veins, to have another look at this matter of tying Scottish legislation to English legislation? Those of us who have served on Standing Committees have experienced the difficulty of working when two interests are tied up in one Bill. Invariably, the practice has operated unfavourably for Scotland. England can look after herself. Would not the Prime Minister reconsider this? With the amount of Scottish legislation involved in this Measure, there is no reason why there should not be a separate Bill.

The Prime Minister: I can only repeat that this matter was most carefully considered by the Secretary of State and other members of the Government and their advisers. We thought that, on the whole, it would be more convenient to deal with these matters in one Bill.

Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the fact that since the Bill was published there has been strong opinion against this procedure of taking English and Scottish matters in one Bill—not for party reasons, but because, legally, it is extremely complicated and inconvenient from the point of view of Parliamentary procedure—will the Prime Minister and his colleagues reconsider the matter? Would it not be for the Government's convenience, as well as for ours, to have two Bills instead of one?

The Prime Minister: I will always reconsider anything which the right hon. Gentleman, individually, asks me to do, but at present I see no reason to change my decision.

Mr. J. Hynd: Will the Prime Minister present the House with an opportunity to discuss the Free Trade Area negotiations, or will we have to wait until those are completed so that we will be able to discuss only failures and omissions? Why should the House not have an opportunity of expressing its views so that those views as well as the rigid attitude of the Government can be made known?

The Prime Minister: It will be more helpful to the purposes which I think


the hon. Member has in view, as I have, if the negotiations taking place next week and the week after are allowed to proceed.

Mr. Farey-Jones: Can time be found for the House to debate the methods at present being employed by the Communist Party in Great Britain? I referred to this matter some months ago. It has now become of such grave danger and insidious poison that the House will neglect it at its peril.

The Prime Minister: In the business which we have in mind for between now and Christmas there will be no opportunity for that to he discussed in Government time, but perhaps my hon. Friend, or one of his hon. Friends, will be fortunate in the Ballot.

Mr. Dugdale: Further to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), will the inquiry of Sir Norman Brook be in public or private?

The Prime Minister: Sir Norman Brook is making an inquiry—which I understood to be agreeable to hon. Members opposite—and he will report to me. When I receive that report, I will have to inform the House of it and then we shall have to judge whether anything more ought to be done in accordance with its character.

Mr. Ernest Davies: On a point of order. Yesterday, Sir, in reply to a Question of mine, the Minister of Transport, in a Written Answer published in HANSARD, in columns 51 to 64, stated that he was circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the full Report to him of the Chairman of the British Transport Commission. He added:
…and also a copy of my letter to him, which sets out the Government's attitude in the matter. They are as follows:…"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1958; Vol. 594, c. 52.]
There then followed, in 13 columns of HANSARD, the Report of the Chairman of the British Transport Commission. However, the Minister's letter in reply was not published. I do not know what can be done about that at this stage.
Is it in the usual precedent of the House to occupy so much of HANSARD with a report which a Minister of the Crown has received? Would it not be

more customary for the report to be published as a White Paper, and would that not be far more convenient for members of the public as well as hon. Members?
Do you not consider it discourteous of the Minister, Mr. Speaker, to give a Written Answer to a Question like this, when an important statement is made, rather than seeking your permission to reply at the end of Oral Questions?

Mr. Speaker: I am not aware of all the circumstances of the matter which the hon. Member has raised. I shall have to look into the hon. Member's complaint and find out what it is all about. At the moment, I can say nothing else.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Further to that point of order. Will you particularly look into the matter of this long statement being available only in HANSARD, although it is of interest to a very large number of people? Do you not agree, Mr. Speaker, that to follow all precedents it should have been published in a White Paper which would have been handy for hon. Members and for others? When you are considering this matter, will you pay special attention to that aspect of it?

Mr. Ernest Davies: Could you not give instructions, Sir, that a full Written Answer should be given, with the omissions rectified, in tomorrow's HANSARD?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member should take up that with the Minister concerned. If a Minister has not done what he said he would do, it is the ordinary thing for the Member to take it up with him.

Mr. D. Jones: Further to that point of order. May I call your attention, Sir, to the fact that at the bottom of col. 53 of yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT there is a note by the OFFICIAL REPORT that it was not possible to reproduce Appendix "B" in HANSARD? It is important that that should be reproduced.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for calling my attention to that fact.

Mr. Lawson: Is it in order to ask whether the Secretary of State for Scotland agreed to the form of the Town and Country Planning Bill which is to be discussed next Wednesday?

Mr. Speaker: It is not in order. The Scots Members have had a very good run on business questions. If I may speak as an impartial observer, I am left in no doubt whatever as to their views and think that the House, also, is fully seized of them.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and of the Committee on Expiring Laws Continuance [Money] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

VISCOUNT TRENCHARD (MONUMENT)

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that a Monument be erected al the public charge to the memory of the late Marshal of the Royal Air Force the Viscount Trenchard, G.C.B., O.M., G.C.V.O., D.S.O., D.C.L., LL.D., as an expression of the admiration of this House for his illustrious career and its gratitude for his devoted services to the State, and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.—[The Prime Minister.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS)

3.49 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section eight of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, praying that the said Act, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine.
This is the first of two Motions which stand on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the other being concerned with the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. I understand that each Motion is to be put separately, but that the House has found it convenient in the past to have any discussion that takes place upon the first Motion. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this course is agreeable to you?

Mr. Speaker: indicated assent.

Mr. Erroll: I presume that it is agreeable.
If these two Motions are passed by the House they will keep in force the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, and, with one exception, the Defence Regulations which are still in force. The Government have already introduced the Emergency Laws Repeals Bill, which sets out new proposals for dealing with emergency legislation.
The Second Reading and subsequent debates will provide opportunities for discussing those proposals, and everything to do with emergency legislation. The sole purpose of the present Motions is to keep the remaining emergency powers in being until Parliament has had time to consider the Government's proposals about their future. Full details are given in the White Paper, Cmnd 563.
In the circumstances, therefore, and in the knowledge that a full debate will take place next week, I hope that it will be the general wish of the House to accept these two Motions without debate today.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: In view of the fact that the question now before us will, in effect, be overtaken on


Wednesday by the Bill, which we shall be able to debate both on Second Reading and in its later stages, and as the House has before it today important business which may take a considerable time to debate, hon. Members on this side are prepared to allow this stage of the matter to go without further debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section eight of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, praying that the said Act, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under section seven of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, praying that Regulations 1 and 6 of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939, which would otherwise expire on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine.— [Mr. Erroll.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — ARMY ACT (CONTINUATION)

3.55 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): I beg to move,
That the Draft Army Act, 1955 (Continuation) Order, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.

Mr. George Wigg: On a point of order. A year ago, when we first debated this Order, Mr. Speaker, you were kind enough to give a Ruling in which you said that matters which normally fell within the purview of the Adjutant-General or Quartermaster-General could properly be raised in debate.
When one reads the Report of that debate in HANSARD after the lapse of a year one becomes conscious of the fact

that your Ruling took on a slight variation in the course of the debate, and it is not unfair to say that before the debate finished we had at least three interpretations of what you had said.
Would it not be convenient to the House, so that we can discuss this matter in an orderly way, for you to be good enough to clarify the Ruling that you gave on that occasion? I respectfully submit that it should take this form: that all matters which normally fall within the purview of the Adjutant-General are in order, and only some of the matters falling within the purview of the Quartermaster-General are in order.
I again respectfully submit that what we are here discussing is the continuation of the Army Act and, broadly speaking, the only matters that we can raise are those covered by the Army Act, which would confine us very closely to matters falling under the charge of the Quartermaster-General—perhaps only to the extent of billeting charges. I should be glad to have your Ruling on this matter, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: My main Ruling last year was to the effect that only matters contained in the Act which it is proposed to continue can be discussed in this Motion for its continuance for another year. I suggested then to hon. Members—and I adhere to that suggestion today—that if they treated the Army Act, 1955, as if it were a Bill, and made a speech appropriate to the debate on the Third Reading of the Bill, namely, a speech confined to what is in the Act and nothing else, they would be in order.
The later Ruling to which the hon. Member referred was designed to make it clear that the Army Act, then and now, makes no provision for those activities of the Army Council which are the responsibility of the General Staff; that is to say, there is nothing in the Act which would authorise any debate or discussion upon operations or strategy, or the wider aspects of defence. That is not in the Act that we are asked to continue, and a discussion of it would be out of order.
In view of something that fell from the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon, I would also say that I have been in great trouble about the Grigg Report.


It is no doubt in hon. Members' minds to a very great extent, but after having looked at the Act again I am sure that it would really be out of order to discuss it today. I am, therefore, glad that the Government have agreed to give a day—on a date which can be arranged between both sides so that it is mutually agreeable—for a discussion of the Report. It may not be possible to keep out incidental references to the Report, but I hope that hon. Members will keep in order by not discussing it, or the Government's reactions to it.
I hope that that is now clear. If hon. Members act on the assumption that they are dealing with the Third Reading of the Army Act, and that that is what is before us, they will remain in order.

Mr. E. Shinwell: The Army Act provides for the provision of certain forces. That is quite clear. When the matter comes up for debate, if we discuss it from the standpoint of a Third Reading debate, and everything which is not contained in the Act is excluded, surely it is permissible to discuss what the forces are doing. The numbers are embodied in the Army Act, and it must be permissible to discuss their activities. So far as those activities impinge upon the recent inquiry conducted by Sir James Grigg, which is now before the House—it has been issued as a Command Paper—it is surely legitimate to consider various aspects of that Report, otherwise there seems no purpose in the debate. What are we to discuss if we do not discuss that?

Mr. Speaker: It would not be in order to discuss what the troops are doing. The Bill makes provision for their discipline and administration and, in relation to the Quartermaster-General's Department, to the limited extent of requisitioning vehicles and billeting. I think that that is all that is concerned in the Act. It says nothing about what the troops are to do, except to obey orders—and the various rules of the Army.

Mr. Shinwell: If, as you say, Mr. Speaker—and I naturally accept what you say—we are entitled to discuss the administration of the forces, it gives us considerable scope. We should be permitted to discuss the administration of the forces in Cyprus, Malaya, Aden and Western Germany. If we are permitted

to discuss administration we can go to a very great length.

Mr. Speaker: I used the word "administration" in the Army sense. In so far as any matter that is raised by hon. Members is in the Act it will be in order. I am not going to make any Ruling in advance, but I should feel obliged to stop any hon. Member who went into a discussion of operational matters.

Mr. John Strachey: I think that we are clear now upon your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I take it that we can read it with the Ruling that you gave last year, when you said:
In so far as the Act makes provision for recruitment and for the terms of engagement of the Regular Army, and in so far as it can be shown that these conditions militate against recruiting or harm recruiting or are successful in attracting recruits, I think that would be in order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December. 1957; Vol. 579, c. 230.]
I have no doubt that nothing you have said today contradicts the Ruling that you gave last year.

Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Act itself, he will see a paragraph headed, "Terms of Engagement." The word "terms" is used in the technical sense of the length of time in which they may engage themselves. It is rather like a lawyer's use of "term of a lease"; it does not include all the conditions. In so far as an hon. Member can show that the time, length of engagement a man must serve, and so on, militate against recruiting or have the reverse effect, I think that he would probably be in order.

Mr. Strachey: The terms of the Act are the terms and conditions of service.

Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman is careful to use the words "terms and conditions" in the sense in which they are used in the Act, he will be in order.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Soames: This is the second time on which the procedure laid down in the new Army Act has come into force, and it is the second time on which there has been a debate on the Continuation Order in this House. Last year, Mr. Speaker, you gave a Ruling which, as I see it, is continued in force by what you have said today, namely, that, broadly speaking,


what would be in order to discuss would be matters affecting the Adjutant-General's and the Quartermaster-General's Departments, in so far as they flow directly from the Army Act.
With that in mind, and hoping that I shall manage to keep within the rules of order as you have laid them down, I intend to devote my speech primarily to three aspects of Army administration, namely, discipline, the administration of justice, which, of course, is fundamental to the whole existence of the Army Act, and recruiting, which can certainly be fairly attached to a debate on the Act in so far as it is affected by the regulations which can be made by the Army Council, as laid down in Section 22 of the Act. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who will be speaking at the end of the debate, will endeavour to cover other points of Army administration which hon. Members raise, and which you, Mr. Speaker, rule to be in order.
First, as to recruiting, in so far as it is affected by the regulations of Section 22, there is a satisfactory tale to tell. I should like to give a few figures to describe the position. Since the last complete month for which I have the complete figures is September it would be most convenient if I were to compare the recruiting figures for the first nine months of 1957 with the first nine months of 1958.
Between January and September of 1957, the Army obtained 21,108 recruits. The comparable figure for 1958 is 21,867. There is nothing extraordinary about that, except, perhaps, for a similarity of the figures. But what is remarkable—and this is the figure of importance—is a comparison of the total number of man-years to which recruits committed themselves on joining. There the comparable figures are for the first nine months of 1957, 73,864, and for the same period of 1958, 126,224, which is an increase of no less than 70 per cent.
Where apprentices and junior leaders are concerned, in the first nine months of 1957, 2,546 boys entered compared with 3,714 this year, an increase of 46 per cent. The number of boys who are now coming forward has so exceeded the most optimistic forecasts that next spring we are to open an extra junior leaders unit, and in the autumn we are planning

to have an additional apprentices school. The individual qualities of the boys who are joining the Army in this way are excellent, and there is no doubt that the great majority of them will reach warrant officer or senior non-commissioned rank, and for any of them who are up to officer standard, the door is wide open.
The Army recruiting picture as a whole is very bright, but the numbers and the quality of boys coming forward is a most encouraging feature of it. It is round the trained soldiers and soldier technicians, who these boys will become, that the frame work of the future Army will be built up. It is good to know that the efforts that have been made in the past to improve the standards of our boys' units have won the confidence of parents and schoolmasters to this extent. We have given these units priority for staff and equipment. From the point of view of the Army as a whole, I do not think that there is any better use to which it could be put.
In reporting to the House on how recruits are coming in under the regulations of this Act, I would say this. The question repeatedly asked since the 1957 White Paper was published, and which both my predecessor and I have so far refused to answer categorically until sufficient time had gone by for a definite trend to manifest itself, can now be answered.
If present trends continue, we shall reach our target of a 165,000 all-Regular Army by the beginning of 1963 with something to spare. That is the answer to the question as it has been put time and again in the last two years. I hope that it will give general pleasure, not least to those who were freely forecasting this time last year that we had not a hope of reaching our target.

Mr. George Chetwynd: If the target is exceeded, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to keep on the extra number and not stick at the original figures?

Mr. Soames: That certainly would not flow from the Army Act. I am being very careful to keep within it.
But there is a more searching question which has to be answered. Will these men who are coming forward under these regulations of the Act be the right quality of men, and will there be the


right numbers in all the categories which a modern Army requires, or will we be overfull in some arms and seriously short in others?
As things are going at present, this question, too, can have a fairly confident answer. Certainly, in the fighting arms and in some of the services we shall have both the numbers and, what is more, the improving quality that we need. But 1963 could find us short in one or two of the administrative corps, in particular Ordnance and the Medical Corps. We are seeing what special steps can be taken to obtain recruits, particularly for these corps which perform such essential functions.
It may well be, that as the Army fills up and it becomes harder for recruits to join regiments or corps of their choice, they will more readily join those corps which are short of numbers. We shall see. I am confident that in one way or another the gap will be bridged.

Mr. R. T. Paget: May I ask whether the Maltese are eligible for these corps?

Mr. Soames: Yes. A number of Maltese have joined the British Army.

Mr. Paget: And they are eligible for these corps?

Mr. Soames: Yes, they are. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Apart from this, the only other rank shortage which concerns us at present is that of the highest grade of technician, who can handle the very complicated radar and electronic devices which will be coming into the Service in increasing numbers.
This is really a reflection of a national problem, which affects not only the Services, but also, of course, civilian firms. Our total requirement for these men in these very highly skilled categories is not more than 5,000. By means of the additional apprentices school and the increasing quality of apprentice recruits, we shall be able to make up the deficiencies in the long run, but for some years there will be a shortage, and this is the problem, and a serious one, which faces us at present.
One other difficulty is that there are not enough women joining the W.R.A.C. and the Q.A.R.A.N.C., the Nursing

Corps, as we should like. Here again, there has been a big improvement this year, but we need more yet. The need for nurses is obvious, but the great importance of the W.R.A.C. to the Army is not always fully appreciated. There is a most important job here for girls, offering good conditions and prospects, and I hope that a growing number will come forward. We shall do all that we can to maintain and increase the recruiting figures.
This, then, is the broad picture of other rank recruiting. On a straight projection of the figures over the last nine months, there will be certain shortages in the all-Regular Army which we will have in some way or other to overcome, and we will do so. Taking the Army as a whole, however, we will be able more than to reach our target by January, 1963. I agree that we are relying on recruiting figures for only nine months and that 1963 is four years away, but so far, I think, the House will agree that this progress report is satisfactory.
When considering whether the regulations made under Section 22 of the Act are likely to result in a sufficiently high level of recruitment being maintained in the future, one has to consider the factors which are likely to influence young men during the next few years. We have now had the pay increases of last spring, which, again, put the Army in a competitive position with civilian employers, and we have the assurance, which has been accepted by the Government, that a biennial pay review will ensure that Service pay does not lag behind. We have had increases in allowances, which especially help the married man.
The new barrack building programme is now well enough advanced to give evidence that the Army will in future be better housed and there are also new uniforms going out for troop trials. At the same time, there is the knowledge that more equipment will be coming in. I appreciate, however, that these factors do not flow from the Army Act and that it would not be in order for me to discuss them at length.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has already discussed them.

Mr. Soames: I look forward, however, to being able to give the House a detailed report upon them at some future date.
I wish I had as satisfactory a tale to tell about officer recruitment. Here again, however, I am in some difficulty, as I cannot see how one can reasonably discuss officer recruitment in this debate, since the terms under which officers are recruited are governed by the Prerogative and have nothing to do with the Act. All I would say is that this is a serious problem. It is one which has been exercising the minds of the Army Council for a long time and I look forward to being able to tell the House on a future occasion about our thoughts on this matter and on what we are basing our hopes of an improvement in the rate of officer recruitment.

Mr. Shinwell: Since the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the matter, would there be any objection to right hon. and hon. Members making positive suggestions as to how he might overcome this difficulty in officer recruitment?

Mr. Speaker: That is rather a matter for me to answer. All that the Secretary of State for War has said is that the conditions and recruitment of officers are governed by the Prerogative. They are not in the Act and, therefore, he cannot go into them in detail. That was proper for the right hon. Gentleman to say as an explanation of why he is omitting this important branch of recruiting. We must, I think, rely upon a future occasion for a discussion of the problem. I ask the House to remember that there will be a debate in Supply on this matter, when all these issues can be gone into.

Mr. Soames: I have a sneaking feeling that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) knew what your answer would be, Mr. Speaker.
I turn now to the administration of justice, a subject which is clearly in order and on which I feel on safer ground. I do not want to bore the House with too many figures, but there are some statistics which, I think, will interest hon. Members. In the twelve months ended 30th June this year, there were 4,600 courts-martial. In just over 5 per cent. of the cases, there were acquittals. A further 1½ per cent. of the verdicts were altered on legal Mounds in consequence of the Judge Advocate General's review of those courts-martial which resulted in convictions. In

those twelve months, 11 applications for leave to appeal went to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court and in no case did the court allow the appeal. In the six years during which the Appeal Court has existed, 177 applications arising from Army cases have been lodged with it. In only three cases have appeals been allowed. I hope that the House will feel that these figures show that justice is being well administered within the Army.

Mr. Wigg: These are valuable and important statistics, but so that the House shall be aware of the true position we need not only the figures for the last twelve months, but at least the comparable figure for the previous twelve months and to have it related to the strength of the Army. The right hon. Gentleman has given a figure of 4,600 courts-martial. If the Army were of a size of 100,000 it would make nonsense. During the previous twelve months, the Army might have been several times bigger. If the figure is not on hand, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will publish it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, or by some other means give us the number of courts-martial, say, per 1,000 soldiers, so that we can get the true index.

Mr. Soames: I do not have the figures with me. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who will wind up the debate, will procure them. In quoting the figure of 4,600 courts-martial, I was not on the same point as the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has raised. I was not saying that the number of courts-martial shows what discipline is like. I was trying to point out that in the 4,600 cases of courts-martial, there was a large percentage of convictions, which shows that courts-martial are not brought about unnecessarily. Secondly, of those who were convicted, only a small number appealed to the court. The fact that none of the appeals to the court was upheld shows that the legal aspect is being well looked after.
There is, however, one aspect of the administration of justice which has recently come to my notice and which gives less ground for satisfaction. In a few cases, although in relation to the total number they form a very small proportion indeed, there has been too much delay in bringing soldiers to trial. In the nature of things, the incidence of


Army service brings its own difficulties in the administration of justice which do not confront the civil courts.
For example, individuals are moved from one country to another fairly frequently. An offence may come to light at a time when the documents, witnesses and the person charged are all in different parts of the world. Nevertheless, the principle of the liberty of the subject is beyond price and must be safeguarded whatever the difficulties. It is our duty to ensure that the citizen enjoys the privileges which stem from it just as freely in the Army as he does outside.
Delay in bringing soldiers to trial must not be caused by administrative failure. To make all the preliminary preparations for a court-martial and to bring all the people concerned and the documentary evidence together at one time and place can be a complex project, involving a good many people, such as movements authorities, who are not directly concerned with the machinery of military law.
Hitherto, if a man went absent while on leave in this country from a foreign station, he was sent back for trial in the country in which he was stationed. This can lead to delay in bringing a man to trial. I have now laid it down that provided only written evidence is required from his parent station, the man should be tried in this country if, by so doing, the trial can be brought about more quickly.
Having said that, I must emphasise that the vast majority of cases are brought to trial with creditable speed, the average time taken to assemble a court-martial in this country, in cases where a soldier is in close arrest, being 24 days, which, I am told, although direct comparisons are difficult, compares favourably with what happens in civilian life.
I now come to the question of discipline and I would talk about it with particular reference to Section 63 of the Army Act, which refers to offences committed against the personal property of a civil population.
During the past three years the Army has been almost continuously engaged in one part of the world or another on internal security duties, which bring their own particular disciplinary difficulties. Cyprus, of course, is in all our

minds at the present time. Internal security is the most thankless task which can be placed on the shoulders of officers and men. In normal peacetime a soldier, like any other citizen, knows where he stands with regard to the law. In wartime, he is guided by military discipline and by the rules of war. Internal security duties come somewhere in between these two situations, in that a soldier who has to run some of the risks of war and at times to take warlike measures to keep the peace, is answerable for all his actions to the civil as well as to the military power.
If troops have to be called in to break up trouble, and are too soft in their handling of the trouble makers, those in command of them will fail to prevent the trouble spreading and will be guilty of dereliction of duty. If, on the other hand, any soldier is proved to have used more force than what is acceptable in law as "minimum force", he and those in command of him are liable to trouble. I would give an example.
In Cyprus earlier this year an officer was court-martialled on a charge of manslaughter when, as a result of his orders, the car in which he was driving through a crowd which had recently been rioting knocked down and killed a civilian. Hon. Members will no doubt remember the case. It was shown to the satisfaction of the court that the consequences to the occupants of the car of not driving through the crowd would have been most serious and the officer was honourably acquitted. I mention that as a typical example of the sort of situation, with many variants, in which an officer or man employed on internal security is liable to find himself.
This year has been particularly difficult, for there was a period when, apart from terrorist activities, the troops also had to deal with an outbreak of communal strife which led to the very brink of civil war. I visited Cyprus at the time, and the tenseness in the island had to be felt to be believed. It is known throughout the world how jealous the Army, this House, and the people are of the discipline and behaviour of our troops. It is quite clear that the E.O.K.A. organisation sets out, as a definite act of policy, to play upon the peculiar difficulties which face security forces in this respect when acting in aid of the civil


power. It deliberately distorts and exaggerates for propaganda purposes the effect of action taken by the security forces in keeping the peace. We have seen it so often.
Every soldier in Cyprus knows that whatever action he is called upon to take in aid of the civil power has to be done with the minimum of force, but we must never forget that the rôle of the security forces in Cyprus is to conquer terrorism, and that there are and will be many instances when the minimum of force necessary is quite a lot of force.
The difficulties which face the troops in internal security operations under Section 63 of the Army Act arise not only from the advantages which the active terrorist enjoys of being able to mingle with the population both before and after he has committed his crime, but from the grip that the terrorist has over the civil population. While the emergency has been on, the terrorists have killed more than 200 of their brother Greek-Cypriots. Why? Because they realise that their terrorist organisation can survive only if they intimidate their own people sufficiently to force them to show at least passive assistance. In fact, the terrorist organisation consists of only a tiny fraction of the Greek-Cypriot population.
We cannot compromise with this terrorism. The security forces must use whatever force is necessary to break the organisation which is responsible for it. Faced, as the troops have been for three years, with the extreme provocation of terrorist acts, they have shown a degree of patience, discipline and restraint which is quite remarkable and which I doubt could have been equalled by any other Army in the world. They have every reason to be proud of it.
Finally, I would say a word about our experience with the new Army Act as a whole. We are debating today whether that Act should be continued in force for a further year. There is no doubt that a second year's experience, as we have now had, of the working of the new Army Act confirms that it has set up a code of military law which is more readily understandable than the old one, which is easy to administer and which is fair to all who are subject to it. There is no doubt that the Select Committee under the chairmanship of my right hon.

and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), and with which the name of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is honourably associated, did a first-class job. It was a considerable task and the Army is in their debt for having fulfilled it so successfully.
I have no hesitation in recommending to the House that we should agree to the continuance of the Army Act for the year 1959.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. John Strachey: As we now have the assurance that we shall have a full debate at no very distant time on the interesting Report which is now before the House, I do not think that it will be necessary for the Opposition to detain the House very long this afternoon. There are, however, things which flow very directly from the new Army Act, and which are of great interest, and I should like to make some comments on them.
I am very glad that the Secretary of State has said both that the new Army Act, as it still is, is working well, and that it is an improvement on the old Army Act. I do not think that any of us has much doubt about that. On the strictly legal side, the right hon. Gentleman gave us interesting figures. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), I could not appreciate what the courts-martial figures meant in the absence of relevant comparisons. The figures of appeal are interesting. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not take the view that because none of the appeals was allowed that shows that the setting up of the Appeals Tribunal was not a good thing. After all, over the longer period three appeals were allowed, so the mere existence of the Appeals Court has been extremely valuable.

Mr. Soames: No, I do not mean that at all, and I am sorry if my remarks have given rise to misunderstanding. I must have phrased them badly. I am delighted that the Appeals Court should be there. I was trying to show that the fact that it did not have to reverse the decisions taken by courts-martial was itself a good thing.

Mr. Strachey: I thought that the remarks might have been taken the other way. I am glad to elicit from the Secretary of State what he has just said.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to deal with that perennial problem of "the law's delay." It is not easy. I recollect it from my period of office. There may be legal difficulties in the course he has taken to try men in this country. I should have thought that promptness is of such importance that it is an experiment well worth trying.
I turn to the subject to which the hon. Gentleman devoted a great deal of attention, that of the effect on recruiting of the regulations issued under Section 22 of the Act. He spoke confidently on this subject and of the probability that the target that the Government had set themselves will be reached. In an official statement the Government have put it very strongly indeed. It says that if anything like the present rate of recruitment is maintained, these targets will easily be reached and, if required, exceeded.
As the Secretary of State knows, I have never been among those who regarded the achievement of these targets as impossible or out of the question. I think that nine months is a fairly short experience on which to base complete confidence and that we still ought to be cautious, but it is true that the level of Army recruiting especially has been most encouraging during the first nine months of this year. It has culminated in the really remarkable figure of 3,930 last September. I shall say something in a moment as to whether that sort of level is likely to be maintained, because I do not think that it is.
Nevertheless, the figures have gone—not steadily, but with variations—up from something much lower, a mere 1,300 in December, 1957, to that figure, which is extremely encouraging. Under the Act we are entitled to ask what has done it? The hon. Gentleman canvassed that to some extent and mentioned the questions of better pay, better conditions, better allowances and the like. The proper thing to say is that pay has little or nothing to do with it.
That view has been reinforced in the Report which we are to discuss on a future occasion. There we are told that pay is not the major issue. As the House knows, I have always been something of a heretic in this matter. In this Report we are told that there has been
a spectacular improvement in Army recruiting figures which started late last year.

I was interested in that phrase:
which started late last year.
Of course, if that were the case it would tend to indicate that pay was not one of the main factors because late last year there had been no announcement, even no rumours of an increase in pay, but the curious thing is that if we look at the figures for late last year we find they are far from showing a spectacular increase. The actual figures late last year were: October. 2,100; November, 1,600: December, 1,300.

Mr. Soames: Is this something I said?

Mr. Strachey: No, this is from the Grigg Report. It is a very odd thing to call that steady decrease in the last three months of the year, from 2,100 to 1,300, a sharp increase. I think that that ought to be put right. Incidentally, those figures, showing a sharp decline in the three last months of last year, ought to warn us that there is likely to be a sharp decline in the three last months of this year also because, for some reason I do not pretend to understand, the three last months of the year are very much less favourable by tradition for recruiting.
They also show that the real spectacular increase in Army recruiting came, not as stated in the Grigg Report, in the last months of 1957, but in the first nine months of this year. I am bound to say that that reinforces my view, which is an unorthodox and unpopular one—which is considered a rather low view—that the very substantial increases in pay, which were contemporaneous with that increase, did have something to do with it. It may be mere coincidence. It may be argued that the effect of the increase which was rumoured at the beginning of the year, which was introduced in the spring and came into effect in April and was contemporaneous with a startling increase, was a mere coincidence, but I find that very difficult to believe.
I have never thought that pay was an all-important factor, but I have thought that to bring the remuneration of the Army—as the Secretary of State said today—into line with civilian remuneration, was an absolute prerequisite for getting the men. I still take that view. That is why I laboured at this point so hard and suggested orders of pay of such magnitude that they were thought very


eccentric, but which, in a quite different form—I acknowledge that most fully, a totally different form—have now been closely approached by the Government. Therefore, I cannot concur in the views on this matter set out in this very interesting Report which we are to discuss later.
I am puzzled by another thing. We have often had from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) disquisitions proving to us that it was absolutely impossible for the Government, under this or any other Bill, to obtain the men they needed for the Army. These alleged proofs have been impressive because he has shown the very limited number of men whom, it was calculated, were available for the Army. His argument appears to be borne out in the Appendix to the Grigg Report, which gives the very remarkable figure of only 126,000 men available for recruitment each year.
Such large deductions are made on medical grounds, grounds of apprenticeship and the rest—it is all set out in the Appendix—that, finally, we get the figure of only 126,000 men reaching the age of 18 who are available as the pool from which recruits for all three Services can come. If those calculations are correct, it would seem an almost impossible task because, as it is pointed out, it would be necessary to recruit one in three of those available in those figures.

Mr. Wigg: This is a point of controversy. We have now established that in actual fact my figures were right and that to get a voluntary Army we have to recruit, long-term, one in four. We have now established clearly, and it always was so, that one in four are going to join the Army but on very long-term engagement. Once we had established the facts we could clearly leave the other question which was one of opinion.

Mr. Strachey: I was going to say I do not believe we have got the facts. I do not think the facts are credible as they are set out here. Take the figure for this September. The Government tell us that they recruited no fewer than 7,700 men to the Armed Forces this September. No doubt that was a completely exceptional month, but that would give a rate of 92,000 men a year if that were given every year.

Mr. Wigg: I am trying to help my right hon. Friend. The point has never

been brought out clearly that the Government figures cover both internal and external recruiting. They cover re-engagements and extensions as well.

Mr. Strachey: That is so, but the bulk of those must come from external sources. It is shown that the Government's need is for 42,000 men. That is the one-in-three figure for the moment, or the one-in-four figure later on. But see what the September figure would mean if the calculations of my hon. Friend and of the Report are correct. It would mean that during this September the Government had actually recruited not one in three, but two out of three, of the available men. This, as Euclid would say, is absurd. Nobody can believe that that is so, so I suggest that both the Government and my hon. Friend should look again at this form of calculation, and see whether there is not something wrong with it—

Mr. Wigg: rose—

Mr. Strachey: Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me finish, and I will then very gladly give way.
First, as he says, there is internal recruiting. That is important, but it is a minor factor. Probably more important would be to find out what the Government think of this exclusion in Appendix "A" of very large categories of the population. It shows 25 per cent. for apprentices and articled pupils 14 per cent. for advanced education, and 15 per cent. for those deemed to be
unfit by service standards on grounds other than medical
as if all these were reserved categories. On anything like the rate of recruitment that we have been getting, not only during September—which is the extreme figure —but during the nine months, I cannot help but think that that can hardly be the case.
Again, it is not only a question of the 18-year-olds. There is a pool—and this may be a once-for-all bonus—of what might be called the older young man—those over 18 years of age—who are not, as it were, the annual crop, but who are being drawn on today. I think that this is an important factor, but I would point out to my hon. Friend that this is a very convenient pool for the Government. It gives them the bonus exactly where they want it at present, and it


is not by any means a reason for supposing that they will not be able to reach their target.
I pose these questions, and they are questions, because, on the face of it, the Government's now very strongly expressed confidence that they will reach their target, the rate of recruiting that they have actually reached in recent months, and the Appendix—with which, I take it, the Committee was supplied from official sources—are incompatible with each other, and it is well worth while that we should be enlightened on these matters. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley would like to intervene now.

Mr. Wigg: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): We are not discussing the Grigg Report, are we?

Mr. Wigg: When I rose a little earlier, my intention was to help my friend in what seemed to me to be a difficulty caused by overlooking the fact that the Grigg figures were based on the 18-year-olds only, whereas the Government, as a once-for-all bonus, have got this better figure.

Mr. Strachey: It does help the Government very much to reach their target in time. Whether it means that, once reached, that target will be more difficult to maintain, is another matter. That is a long-term consideration that should be looked at.
I should like now to turn to discipline and training, which are very directly concerned in this matter. The views that have recently been expressed, officially and unofficially, on the subject of discipline have been eminently sane. It is quite right to say that strict discipline is a positive factor in recruitment, in the maintenance of the man in the Army, and in his re-engagement when he has been recruited. I have not the slightest doubt about that.
On the other hand, officially, unofficially and semi-officially, we have serious criticisms not of the discipline, but of the way in which the Army applies the disciplinary rules and regulations contained in this Act. Either today or on a later occasion, I should like to hear the Government's views, because I do not

think that they deal with the subject at all adequately in the White Paper. They deal with many things very well indeed, if I may say so, and give forthright and positive answers, but on this critical point of discipline, of the life of the soldier when off duty—on which strong recommendations have been made—they seem, so far, to have given us no answer at all.
They give no real answer to the question whether there is not what might be called an unnecessary ceremonial side of Army life—about which I have never expressed strong views, because I have never served in the Army. It is difficult to know, but we have strong evidence that serious and careful investigators have come to the view that there is something wrong about pay parades, kit inspections and the like. So far, the Government have not indicated their opinion.
As the Secretary of State said, we certainly cannot today discuss the equipment of the Army, but there is just one point that is thoroughly germane to the Act, and to its possible continuation. The Act is intimately concerned with the requisitioning of vehicles. We have been told that so bad is the position in this respect that the Army has at present either to requisition or borrow vehicles from allied forces. That is something to which the Government must, at a very early date, address their minds, because, if equipment has become as bad as that, it must be affecting the Army—

Mr. Soames: I intervene only to say that I should very much like to answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions if I thought that I would be in order in doing so.

Mr. Strachey: I realise that none of us can say very much more than that. The Secretary of State mentioned it in about the same space of time as I have—about a minute in each case—and perhaps the Under-Secretary will have his minute on the subject later. I am bound to say, however, that when we reflect on the expenditure in that direction it is remarkable that the subject should have to be raised at all.
I turn next to accommodation. Who can doubt that accommodation bears very closely indeed on the discipline and morale of The Army? Again, the word "scandalous" is used about much of the present accommodation for the Army,


and that charge, surely, is something that the Government must meet, and meet at a very early date.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Where is the word "scandalous" used, I wonder?

Mr. Strachey: It is used in the Grigg Report. We were told that slight references to the Grigg Report were in order. Mr. Speaker allowed that. That was his phrase. But I am quite sure that we should not be in order in discussing it.
I am very glad that the Secretary of State mentioned the subject of Cyprus and discipline there. It was courageous for him to do so, and I am very glad that he did. I am sure that I can speak for every right hon. and hon. Member on this side of the House when I say that we agree with him wholeheartedly that the sort of police action, in aid of the civil power, in which the troops have been engaged year after year in Cyprus is by far the most trying situation for the discipline and morale of an Army that it can possibly have. It is neither peace nor war. It is the most unpleasant circumstance in which troops can find themselves—indeed, the word "unpleasant" is a grave understatement.
The consequences, and they are terrible consequences, which inevitably flow from keeping men in this situation year after year are never the fault of the troops concerned. In our opinion, they are always the responsibility, and, in the circumstances of Cyprus, we think, the fault, of the Government who order the troops into that situation and maintain them there.
I do not pretend to know, and I do not think that anyone fully knows, what happened, for instance, at Famagusta very recently. There is no doubt that horrible things happened. The original murder of the wife of a Service man was something indescribably horrible. I have no doubt that the death of the two Cypriots who, in the words of the Colonial Secretary, died trying to escape or resist arrest, and who may or may not have had anything to do with the murder in question, was a horrible event, too.
I put it simply to the Secretary of State. No one is blaming the troops in Cyprus or at Famagusta for these events, but we blame the Government who create the

situation and maintain it by their policy. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, on the basis of present policy, more and more of these horrible events in Cyprus will take place? One of them, apparently, has taken place this very day.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is colonial and foreign policy in order for discussion under the terms of the Army Act?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is in order in discussing that.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: While Mr. Speaker was in the Chair the Secretary of State for War was good enough to deal with the question of discipline in Cyprus and the problems involved. Mr. Speaker allowed that, and no one questioned it, not even the Clerk at the Table, who is there is advise him.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that we ought not to deal with foreign or colonial policy in this matter.

Mr. Strachey: I certainly would not dream of doing so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am dealing very strictly with the discipline of the Armed Forces. I am following the Secretary of State very closely in that matter and, if I may say so with great respect, I think that the right hon. Gentleman was fully in order and very right to bring in this by far the severest test to which the discipline of the Army is being put today. As he commented quite freely on this matter, I feel that we on this side must make our comments on it, but at no greater length than he did, though at no lesser length.
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the strain on the Army—I will go further—the inevitable damage to the Army, which the perpetuation of this situation in Cyprus from year to year, which he himself described very well as the most difficult one in which an Army can find itself, must create? Does he appreciate the repercussions which the imposition of repugnant and hateful tasks on the Army must have in the end?
Earlier this week, the Colonial Secretary took it upon himself to issue a statement about the conduct of the Army in Cyprus. I should have thought that that was more the province of the Secretary of State for War. In any case, I should


have thought that the Colonial Secretary would have been better employed seeking that political settlement which only the most blind can now deny is the only way of relieving the Army from the repugnant tasks which it faces in Cyprus.

4.55 p.m.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: I am sorry to say that this is the first time I have had to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) and I have not been able to say that I agree with most of what he has said and congratulate him, in a humble way, on his speech, but I think that he ended on a sordid note which spoilt all the rest of his speech. What the right hon. Gentleman was doing, in fact, was endeavouring to turn the views of the troops in Cyprus against the Government.

Mr. Strachey: No.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Anyone knows perfectly well that that is what he was about.
After what the right hon. Gentleman said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think that I should be perfectly in order in starting a debate on the policy of this Government in Cyprus. He repeatedly used such terms in his speech, criticising the policy of the Government in Cyprus. We have had several colonial policy debates on these matters, and they have been fully thrashed out in the House. I should very much like to be able to ask the right hon. Gentleman what his solution is today and what his position is. However, that would be out of order, and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has cheated is no reason for anyone else to cheat.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War mentioned one matter in his speech on which I congratulate him and the Army, if I may. I refer to cadet training, which is really magnificent. Anyone who has been to a cadet school realises that the regiments are now sending not, as sometimes they used to do, their worst N.C.O.s to extra-regimental employment; they are sending their very best N.C.O.s and their finest young officers. To see the spirit of leadership and the amusing relationship there is between N.C.O.s and men, creating this quite obvious pool of future regimental sergeant majors and warrant officers, is a delight. The more of it we can have the

better it will be for the British Army of the future.
I happen to be one of those who helped to compile this Act. I am delighted to hear, not only from the Secretary of State for War but also from many of my friends in the Army, that it is operating extremely will. They like it. It is much clearer, more concise and more readily understandable than the old Act. I am interested to know, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to tell us, whether, since the introduction of the Act—taking the period of a year or whatever is most convenient—courts-martial have been on the increase, on the decrease, or have remained much the same. I should be very interested also to know about appeals. The number of appeals, I think, is very significant, as also is the fact that no appeal has been upheld.
We have heard a great deal about discipline, and this is a subject which is quite clearly in order. In this country, there has always been, unfortunately, a misconception about what Army discipline really is. This has arisen, to a great extent from the exceptions, the minor number of bad or inferior regiments which do exist in the Army. There is an old Army saying that there is no such thing as a bad regiment; there are only bad officers and bad N.C.O.s. This is really the root and basis of it.
When there are bad officers and N.C.O.s there is bad discipline. The Act is applied in the wrong way. This does not mean that the discipline ought to be less strict. That, again, is a completely wrong conception. Recruiting figures confirm this. If one takes the Parachute boys, the Marine Commandos or the Brigade of Guards, anywhere where the discipline is more strict than in other units, there one finds the recruitment; it is the whole feeling of a unit being right on its toes, smart, well-disciplined and happy. No undisciplined unit can possibly be happy.
There is one other aspect of the matter which is very often misunderstood. It is the idea that discipline is imposed just for fun, to fill in the time, or perhaps to satisfy the bullying instincts of commanding officers and N.C.O.s and so on. I have studied this matter very carefully, and the point is that discipline is in fact a form of yoga. It is the way in which


we train a man so that his mind can control his body in extremely difficult circumstances. There is no parallel at all that I know of in civilian life. There was a time when people used to talk about railway discipline and how well the railways were run and that there was no discipline there, but there is no real parallel in civilian life.
We take a man out of a regimental rest area and put him in the front line, where he may be for three or four weeks, drenched to the skin, up to the waist in water, short of rations, very tired and short of sleep. We then ask him to be subjected to the severest test to which any human frame can be subjected—to walk forward under shell-fire and to face machine guns. I have seen in bad discipline units men who have wished to go forward, whose whole instinct was to go on, but whose minds were incapable of controlling their legs and bodies and make them do what they really wished to do. It is simply a form of yoga in order to teach the men to have control of their bodies so that they can react in the ways in which they themselves wish to react in very difficult circumstances.

Mr. Mellish: I am interested in what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying and respect it, but I think we ought not to ignore the fact that the average British soldier is not a coward. That is rather important, for, if he is a coward, no discipline in the world will make him any different.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I have never seen a real coward. I have met some moral cowards, but not physical ones. What I was trying to say was this. With the very best will in the world and the desire to go forward, mental control of the body will be lacking unless it has practice and is taught assiduously. The wrong sort of discipline, to which I want to refer by mentioning one particular instance, is that of the commanding officer having Saturday morning parades in order to prevent men from going away for weekend leave on Friday night. I think that is wrong, that it is giving the Army a bad name and is also bad for recruiting.
As regards the ugly word "bull," which I dislike intensely, since we all know what it means, I hope we all realise that there has been an over-emphasis on

this, very often in bad regiments, to cover up their defects. I only hope that my right hon. Friend and others will see to it that the pendulum does not swing too far the other way, because this is really purely a question of self-respect. It is just like people holystoning their front steps or polishing the brass knobs on their doors, and it comes to the same thing. We cannot go to any mining village without finding these doorsteps holystoned and the brass knobs highly polished. It is all part of that self-respect and keeping up appearances.
I wish to appeal to my right hon. Friend over one matter which was referred to yesterday in the Evening Standard. Whether the facts reported there are correct or not I do not know, but they were quoted there. Here is a case of a man—a corporal or a sergeant—accused of distributing anti-E.O.K.A. leaflets in a fit of desperation. He was court-martialled and given a sentence of nine months' detention—a long whack of detention; an incredible sentence—and also reduced to the ranks. This happened on the day when a sergeant was murdered. The sentence on E.O.K.A. men for very similar offences of distributing leaflets was, in the case of two of them, a fine of £5, and in another a fine of £2. This man had seen many instances of E.O.K.A. terrorism, and six cases occurred in the village in which he lived. His own wife, who was going to have a baby, was threatened with having her house burned down. I ask my right hon. Friend, speaking for the sake of this poor unfortunate woman and her husband, and also for the sake of the morale of the troops in Cyprus, to see that that sentence should be reviewed and very drastically reduced.
In regard to recruiting, we cannot, unfortunately, discuss today the recruiting of officers, which is really more difficult and, I think, a more serious problem at the moment than the recruiting of men. We have all heard the facts and figures which have been bandied backwards and forwards, but recruiting is affected by so many things—pay, accommodation, children's education, bad stations, housing and so on. I want to say two things, because this is also very much a question of recruiting and discipline. The first is in regard to the housing programme of £90 million. I think there is


a little bit of complacency about it. Over and over again, we hear that this money has been under-spent, and this really is nonsense. I hope my right hon. Friend will issue the strongest possible directive that this must not go on. Surely, housing does have its effect on discipline.

Mr. Mellish: This comes up tomorrow.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: It was mentioned by both right hon. Gentlemen.
The next point is the question of troops in outlying stations, their accommodation, service conditions, discipline and welfare. We know quite well that in stations like Germany and even Cyprus, where there are good bathing facilities, things are all right, but if men are stuck out in the middle of acres of yellow sand, miles from anywhere, that is quite different. I am referring to North Africa, where regiments are sent for a three-year period before being brought home, and I am not referring to other stations like, for instance, Jordan, where men were flown in and out again after a short time. In these permanent stations, where men may be sent for three solid years, a great deal more could be done to make the lives of these men a little more interesting.
I cannot see any earthly reason why, in special outlying stations like these, extra money should not be provided for amenities and entertainments for them. No doubt the officers can find their own entertainment, for they like shooting, fishing and so on, which the men do not get and do not like. I have instances of this, and if my right hon. Friend would like me to tell him about them later, I would be glad to do so, but I hope that he will look into the matter as soon as possible, because it is very important from the point of view of recruiting.
Another important matter concerning recruiting is that of the two-way traffic between schools and units—units going to the schools to show themselves and boys from the schools all over the country being invited to spend a weekend, or more or less, with the unit in its training, with tanks and so on. We did that in the Royal Tank Regiment and the Royal Armoured Corps during the war with immensely good results. It fires the imagination of the boys, and is a most excellent thing for recruiting.
Finally, I wish to refer to a matter which has already been mentioned—internal security in Cyprus. I hope that my right hon. Friend realises that to keep a battalion on internal security and police duties for too long is bad and is capable of ruining a good battalion. If they operate with shield and pick helve for too long and then suddenly have to face a real crisis, and these men have to operate and act as soldiers, the officers and N.C.O.s find that it is a very difficult task to get the men to switch over quickly from the one to the other. It is a very serious matter for any good regiment. We all know—and I am very glad to see it—that more police were provided in Cyprus the other day. The job out there is a police job much more than it is a soldier's job. In Palestine, when I was doing a similar sort of thing, we had policemen out there who could go into the villages with their pockets bulging with money and obtain the names of the men they wanted. That is the right way. To ask soldiers to perform that task is entirely wrong.
One last word. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would look into—I do not know whether it is true or not—what has happened since Sir Hugh Foot went out there as opposed to what was done when Field Marshal Harding was there. One of the basic principles of internal security is to have units in the middle of the town—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is really administration, is it not?

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: At any rate, I have said it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If the units are not in the middle of the town it necessitates three times the number of troops being used.
Finally, I would like to add my very cordial tribute to those who have done this job so long and so well and to congratulate the new C.I.G.S. and to wish him luck.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I wanted to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) on the question of discipline in the Army. I found myself in very considerable agreement with what he had to say in the earlier part of his speech as to discipline in the Army. It is not an


indefinable thing. It is something that creates a physical and spiritual response which can override the normal conduct of the person.
Where troops are well disciplined and well led, even those who are not normally very highly endowed with the dona di corragio, one finds, none the less, that they perform most gallantly in battle. We have found that very often with troops which have been trained by British officers from not very warlike races. The curious thing about this is the tremendous difficulty of ever laying down any rule about it at all. What is effective discipline from one commander is an outrage from another. It is desperately difficult to fit it into rules.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to "bull". "Bull" can be a very important element in discipline or it can be a mere irritation. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman very rightly said, it depends whether it comes from self-respect and a desire to have a smarter unit or whether it is imposed as an annoyance.
I know that when I had a landing craft flotilla we used to move from ship to ship where we had our mess deck. We used to take tremendous pride in our mess deck, and I am sure that was welcomed by the chaps. On one occasion the commander of a ship ordered all his ship's company to see our mess deck. That gave us a tremendous uplift.
It depends tremendously on the quality of the leadership whether there is enjoyment and competition in it or something of annoyance. I feel that this is an element which ought to be emphasised more. If I were to be asked for the opposite to discipline I would say it was nagging. Where there is the sort of N.C.O. or officer who is always chasing round to find someone to tell him not to do something one gets an irritation and an opposition to the common will of the unit instead of creating that common will which is discipline.
I feel that in training more emphasis should be placed upon the fact that the better the discipline the fewer orders that are necessary. Being fewer orders, those orders are recognised as necessary and call for co-operation instead of creating irritation which is the opposite.
Having made these rather general points which arise out of what the hon.

and gallant Gentleman said, I now want to turn to the question of discipline in Cyprus, and discipline in the particular circumstances of Cyprus. I will not concern myself in any way with whether or not we ought to be in military occupation of Cyprus. That does not concern the Army. The Army is there on military occasion, and it is the discipline of that military occupation with which we are concerned.
In this type of military occupation, which is neither war nor peace, the most important single factor of discipline is confidence in the High Command. If that confidence is there we get restraint. If that confidence is not there, then troops under pressure will take the law into their own hands.
I personally believe that Field Marshal Harding did a great job. One of the really important things he did was to provide that confidence in the command. I believe that when he was there—there were some pretty sharp court-martial sentences when people went too far, although, on the whole, in very trying circumstances—thediscipline and restraint were all to his credit. I do not think that the same standards have been maintained since his departure very much for the reason that there is not the same confidence in the command.
It is quite fatuous for us to close our eyes to the fact that at Famagusta there was a grave breakdown of discipline. One does not create discipline simply by closing one's eyes and pretending that nothing has happened. Nor does one recreate discipline by sentencing a corporal to nine months for handing out a leaflet which did not even refer to the Army and then proceed to impose a perfectly ludicrous sentence on the next person. That is not the way to give the Army confidence in its command.
What I am now going to say may cause a good deal of controversy, particularly on this side of the House. There are units in Cyprus—I think I am right and the Under-Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong—who have been there under canvas for nearly two years. That is wrong. The Greeks have houses. They have created the necessity for this military occupation, and they ought to learn to bear its burden. The houses should be requisitioned for our


troops. It is the Greeks who, if necessary, ought to be under canvas. If we do not do that, our troops will not believe that we are on their side and we shall not get the discipline.
I am not saying whether or not it is right to have a military occupation, but if we are in military occupation we must have the self-confidence to believe that it is right. If we believe that it is right then we must follow the logical conclusion of so believing and believe that our troops are right to be there and that the Greeks are wrong to make their presence necessary. It is for the Greeks to carry the burden of living under canvas if they have made it necessary for their houses to be needed by our troops. That is particularly the case in areas where it is difficult to control certain villages. It might be easier to control them if the troops moved in and the inhabitants were moved out. It is the behaviour of the villagers which has made that necessary. If that sort of thing is done, we shall get the confidence of our troops, although I do not say whether it is right or wrong to have a military occupation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not say whether it is right or wrong, either. It is very interesting, but is it in the Army Act?

Mr. Paget: I am dealing directly with the discipline of the troops in Cyprus and I am saying that we do not get discipline unless we convince the troops that our Higher Command is on their side. If we have more consideration for the enemy than we have for our own men; if our own men get nine months and the enemy are fined £5 for passing round pamphlets—in the latter case a pamphlet asking the local population to murder our troops—and if our troops are two years under canvas while the people who are causing the trouble are left undisturbed in their houses and no requisitioning takes place; if the strategically important centres of the towns are left in the hands of the local property owners and the job of controlling the towns is made more difficult or impossible by putting the troops outside the towns, we shall not have discipline in our Army.
That is the sole point I make. I do not say whether it is right or wrong to have

military occupation; it may be quite wrong to have it. But if we have it, for heavens sake have the courage to take the consequences of what we have done.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) persuaded you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker to allow him to complete his remarks about Cyprus because, without any collusion, I was about to say exactly the same thing; and to reinforce that point, although I cannot do it nearly as eloquently as he does, I will, with your permission, say exactly the same as he did. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tedious repetition."] It may be tedious, but it is not repetition by me.
I believe that the discipline of our troops in Cyprus has been worse than it should have been for some time and I believe that this is so for exactly the same reason as that given by the. hon and learned Member: very soon after Harding left the island, the troops did not feel that they were being given the necessary backing for their operations. They felt that the Higher Command had lost confidence in them, and they therefore lost confidence in the Higher Command.
I read in a paper the other day an article by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly). He had visited a detention centre in Cyprus which was being looked after by British troops. In the detention centre he found conditions exactly as they would be in any reasonably good barracks in this country, with all the usual kit which people have, but he found the troops living in tents outside. He found the detention centre in a state of near-mutiny, because of the "hardships" they were undergoing, and the troops outside living in tents.
In this article the hon. Member stated that the British Government paid the people in the detention camps as much as two-thirds of their salary while they were in detention. In those circumstances it is not surprising that our troops do not think they are having the necessary backing to carry out the difficult and arduous job they have.
I wish to refer to a case mentioned twice already this afternoon, that of Corporal Ford, who distributed a leaflet denouncing the murders by E.O.K.A.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. Is it in order for any hon. Member to mention this case, which is still sub judice? The trial has taken place, but the sentence has not been confirmed. It must have been embarrassing for the Secretary of State to hear references to this case, which has yet to come before him in his judicial capacity.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not realise that it was sub judice. Under the circumstances, we must not discuss it.

Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order. While the sentence has not been confirmed, the case is not sub judice in the sense that no decision has been reached; a decision has been reached. I do not expect the Minister to be able to say anything about the case, whether he approves or disapproves, or whether he will confirm the sentence, but I submit that it is in order to comment upon the case, although the Minister, in replying on the subject, will say only that he has not had time to consider it. Furthermore, the case has already been referred to twice this afternoon, and I do not see why it should now be out of order to refer to it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was at fault in allowing reference to it. I did not realise that it was sub judice.

Mr. Strachey: Is it sub judice?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am told that it is. If it is sub judice, no reference must be made to it. Perhaps the Minister could guide us on this.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Julian Amery): Perhaps I can help the House. I have been advised that the G.O.C. has confirmed the conviction, but has reduced the sentence to 56 days.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Then presumably it is not sub judice.

Mr. Kershaw: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
I think that a sentence of 56 days is absolutely scandalous. I do not know what the Army Command thinks it is doing. Why should this man be subjected to 56 days' detention for having distributed a leaflet which—few particulars have been given—presumably was not a very serious leaflet and was certainly nothing like as serious as the leaflets distributed by E.O.K.A.?

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. If we are discussing the discipline and the well-being of the troops in Cyprus, is it competent for hon. Members to discuss the action of the G.O.C., acting in his judicial capacity, in those scandalous terms?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the hon. Member was making the point that discipline was too harsh, which would perhaps be in order.

Mr. Wigg: Even if the G.O.C. has confirmed the sentence, the case has still to go to the Secretary of State for his review. In any case, to refer to the G.O.C.'s action as scandalous is surely a breach of the rules of the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The point whether discipline is too harsh or too lenient is in order. Hon. Members may discuss that, but perhaps they had better keep clear of individual cases.

Mr. Kershaw: If you please, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
I did not say anything about the G.O.C. I think that the sentence is absolutely scandalous and ought not to have been imposed. I say that advisedly, and I am surprised at the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) defending that sort of thing. I thought that he had the well-being of the troops at heart.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was trying to keep the debate in order, and I am thankful for his assistance. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) must not say that about him.

Mr. Kershaw: It must be very gratifying for the hon. Member to be so commanded on a point of order. It does not always happen.
I will turn to a slightly less controversial matter. I want to ask a question briefly on the amalgamation of Army regiments. We know that some amalgamations have yet to take place; there have been announcements that they will take place.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That does not appear in the Act which we are considering.

Mr. Kershaw: I wish to refer to them because of their effect upon the morale of the troops.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may be so, but there is nothing about amalgamations in the Act.

Mr. Kershaw: Many things which are not directly mentioned in the Act have been discussed. Army recruiting is, I understand, a subject which is in order in the debate.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. May I point out that, as reported in c. 230 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 3rd December last year, when this matter was discussed, Mr. Speaker ruled,
In so far as the Act makes provision for recruitment, and for the terms of engagement of the Regular Army, and in so far as it can be shown that these conditions militate against recruiting or harm recruiting or are successful in attracting recruits, I think that would be in order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 230.]
If the hon. Member is trying to show that these amalgamations militate against recruiting, surely he has every right to express that view.

Mr. Kershaw: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) for saying that. As my right hon. Friend knows, there is a large measure of hereditary and of tradition in recruiting to some of the regiments of the British Army, and those are the regiments which are threatened with these amalgamations. The longer the decision is postponed, the more reluctant officers and men will be to join the regiments in which their fathers and grandfathers served, and to that extent they will be lost to the Army. A man who first joins one regiment because of family traditions is not necessarily prepared later to join another, and while he does not know whether that regiment, which is his traditional regiment, will continue to exist, he will hesitate before making up his mind to be a Regular soldier.
I very much hope, therefore, that a decision will shortly be announced as to what these amalgamations will be. I hope that the only reason why my right hon. Friend has not announced so far what they will be is because he hopes that with progress in recruiting the amalgamaitions will not become necessary. If that is so, a large number of people who are anxious to join those regiments, and who are anxious to see the numbers of the Army kept up, will be very relieved.
This is an important point and I hope that in due course my right hon. Friend will be able to give the House some information about it.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: If I may help the hon. Member, if he goes to the Vote Office and asks for the White Paper entitled, "Future Organisation of the Army" he will be able to get a list of the amalgamations which are in progress. I should like to remind him that this White Paper was published just over a year ago. I am sorry that we got on to the question of a young corporal under sentence, but I was trying to help. If the sentence had not been confirmed and if we wanted to help this young man, then we should have kept our mouths shut.

Mr. Kershaw: Why?

Mr. Wigg: Because the G.O.C. is acting in a judicial capacity, and so is the Secretary of State. It may well be that a number of considerations will come to light that may help this N.C.O. At this stage we can do little for him.

Mr. Kershaw: The hon. Member says that if we want to help this man we should keep our mouths shut. I hope he is not implying that merely because we wish to mention this grievance then either the G.O.C. or the War Office will, out of resentment, impose a heavier sentence or let the sentence stand.

Mr. Wigg: I shall have to spell it out with baby bricks. There are a number of factors which may become known to the G.O.C. and the Secretary of State. After all, the man has the legal right to go to the Court of Appeal. Before raising the matter, we should give him and his advisers the chance to explore every avenue open to him. That is why I raised the matter, not because of lack of sympathy with him but because I want to help.
I thought that we ought to remind ourselves why the House of Commons has been jealous of its control of the Armed Forces and why it reductantly gave up the right to pass an annual Army Act for a procedure which has been abandoned in favour of the procedure which we are carrying out today. For centuries the political system in this country has demanded that the civilian influence should


be supreme. Government by major generals has never been accepted in Britain, and we shall be very unwise if we do not remember and insist as the years go by that civilian authority in our affairs must continue to be paramount. It would be fatal to the political health of the country if the opinions of soldiers, sailors or airmen however distinguished they are, overshadow the influence of freely elected Parliament.
Therefore, we need to remind ourselves, and the Secretary of State for War constantly needs to remind himself, that he is the link between the House of Commons, the High Court of Parliament, and its control of the Armed Forces. One or two things have happened recently which lead us to suppose that the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that.
For example, a statement was made on 4th November by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He was asked a Question about the forces and their behaviour in Cyprus, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies came to the House of Commons and commented on the discipline of the Army. This is utterly and completely wrong, and it is an insidious doctrine that, when a Parliamentary Question is put down by an hon. Member from either side of the House, it should be passed over to the Colonial Office or accepted by the Colonial Office. The person who is responsible for the acts of the Army and the acts of individuals in the Army, for their training, discipline and equipment, is the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and nobody else.
If any hon. Member feels the need to commend or condemn the Army, then his compliments or criticisms should be directed not to an individual soldier or regiment, but to the Secretary of State for War. He should be jealous of this right, even in relation to the Minister of Defence. For administrative reasons, the Prime Minister has chosen to relate the three Service Departments and the Ministry of Defence, but he has not altered the Royal Warrant under which the right hon. Gentleman acts. The relevant words, in effect, say that he is responsible to Her Majesty and to Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman will do the Army a great service if he is quick to resent any replies by the Secretary of State for the Colonies

or the Minister of Defence which detract from that right.
I want to keep in order and I certainly do not propose to discuss fully the Grigg Report. It is a first-class report written by a great civil servant to whom this country owes a very great deal, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to try to make amends for the incredible meanness which caused Sir James Grigg to be deprived of his pension when he became the political head of the War Office. I should like to pay my tribute to him. I accept the Report and think that it will do a great service for the Army.
However, year after year the Labour Party has pressed the Government for an inquiry along these lines. I have always held and supported that view because it seems to me that in dealing with the Armed Forces, in whatever sphere, whether it be recruitment, equipment, training, or the subjects which have been mentioned this afternoon, the object should be to take them out of politics. We are a non-military-minded nation. In peacetime we do not care two-pence about the Army. We know from Rudyard Kipling what happens to the soldier in peacetime and what happens when the guns begin to fire. Every penny is begrudged.
A very distinguished lady once said, in a very penetrating judgment on conditions in the Women's Services, that virtue has no publicity value. When a corporal makes a mistake it appears that all the good things the Army has done are forgotten. Those of us who have this problem at heart, who realise its importance, who realise our weakened position in the world, and who realise the necessity of having to make do on very limited means, try to establish the facts in the first instance. We may have our fun and games, but we should always strive to obtain the figures and establish the facts.
Being interested in recruiting, although lacking the resources of Government Departments, I have from time to time made my own recruiting calculations and I congratulate myself on the fact that Sir James Grigg and his Committee arrived at the same answer as myself. He made it one in four and I made it one in four. Having once established the facts, it then becomes a question of opinion based on interpretation of those facts. Everybody


in the House can hold his own view whether one in four of the men eligible will join the Armed Forces on a long-term engagement. But I have never thought that that is so and I do not think so now.
The right hon. Gentleman gave a sidelong glance at me when he mentioned the recruiting figures. I assure him that I am not running away from them. The interesting thing about the September figures is this. Every year the highest recruiting figure is in the month of September. September is the best recruiting month. We can be certain, therefore, that October, November and December this year will not be as good as September. I go further and say that I do not believe that the recruiting figures next year will equal the figures of this September.
In their enthusiasm for the new figures, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not learn from the facts of past experience. I remember only too well, in much the same atmosphere of self-congratulation which covers both Front Benches—the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head) will remember—that on 29th January, 1953, there was a contest between him and my right hon. Friend as to who was responsible and who should have the credit for introducing the new three-year engagement. Just previously, The Times had said that 1952 had given us the best recruiting figures of the century and both right hon. Gentlemen wanted the credit for that.
I do not raise that matter now for controversial reasons. I merely want to repeat what I said on that occasion. We had, in the previous twelve months, done two things. We had altered the terms of engagement and we had increased the rates of pay. We had not increased the number of people available for enlistment. All through 1952 there was a rise in recruitment. In January, 1953, the Government asked for a Supplementary Estimate in order to get more money to meet the cost of the increased pay through the rise in recruiting.
This afternoon the right hon. Gentleman pointed to the great increase in the first nine months of this year against the figures for the equivalent nine months of last year. There has not been a great increase in the number of recruits, but, as he rightly said, a remarkable increase in the number of man-years. That is a subject on which I have tried to educate

the House of Commons. I presented that policy to the Labour Party, but it rejected it. The size of the Army will primarily depend on the number of years for which men will enlist.
The Government have taken my advice and profited from it. They are in sight of getting rid of National Service, but only in sight of that objective. One penetrating statement from Sir James Grigg—

Mr. Soames: When saying that the Government have taken his advice the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that what happened was that the engagement was altered at the time when it was decided to go over to all-Regular Forces.

Mr. Wigg: I agree. I always said that we could never get rid of National Service until we got rid of the three-year engagement and that is exactly what has happened. We are now getting back to the long-service engagement. The hon. Gentleman should learn that the difference between a National Service Army and a volunteer Army is that a volunteer Army, must, by definition, be a long-service Army—but I do not wish to be diverted from the main theme of my argument.
I want to quote from paragraph 4 of Sir James Grigg's Report:
It is not, of course, for us to say whether the figure of 375,000 is the right one.
A figure of 375,000 for all the forces means a figure, so we are told, of 165,000 for the Army. I will not embarrass the Minister by asking whether he thinks that figure is high enough for the Army. I know that it is not. The Minister of Defence, when he made a speech at the Royal Tournament, offered 10 to 1 that he would be able to get rid of National Service and reach his target. I could not get to the Post Office fast enough to take advantage of his 10 to 1 offer.
I am sure, as I was at the beginning of the year when I spoke during an Adjournment debate, that the recruiting figures announced by the right hon. Gentleman are not good enough to enable him to achieve his target. Both Sir James Grigg and he have put in this qualification— "if the present recruiting figures are maintained." I do not think that they will be Sir James Grigg and the Government advisers who helped him


have done the basic sum which appears in Appendix "A" and although my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) does not agree I certainly do. It seems to me certain that there will be a manpower gap when National Service ends. There will not be a gap in the "teeth arms," because the Government, in the White Paper to which I referred the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) a short while ago, are cutting down the number of infantry battalions to 49. No one in his senses thought that there would be a gap in the "teeth arms", but there will be gaps in the Services. But there is another question—are there enough "teeth arms"? Have we enough infantry battalions to maintain 55,000 troops in Germany and, as at present, 16 major units in Cyprus?
We have heard a lot about the question of discipline in Cyprus and I wish to say a word about it and to deal with the facts as I see them. The interesting thing about the Cyprus situation—

Mr. Mellish: Before my hon. Friend goes on to deal with Cyprus, may I ask him something about the question of the Army in 1962 as he envisages it, including the demands from Cyprus and Germany and all the rest of it? Surely, the crux of the matter is whether the figure which the Government have stated as being required in 1962 is related to whether or not we shall be committed to such commitments at that time which will result in a need for such a figure.

Mr. Wigg: I do not agree with that. There are two considerations. The first is whether 375,000 is sufficient. There is a second question, whether we are getting a balanced force of 375,000. It is no use having cooks when we want men in machine gun squads. This is a highly complex matter. I do not wish to deprive myself of the opportunity of speaking about the Grigg Report, but there is a fundamental weakness in that Report inasmuch as it does not deal with the question of balanced forces. Today, the Army does not consist merely of so many men and so many cooks. Unless we have the right mixture the question of an overall number is not of paramount importance.
I wish to return to the question of discipline in Cyprus and relate it to the

wider question of discipline as a whole. I agree with much of what the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) said. There is no more difficult job for soldiers than that of providing internal security. Those of us who have been "on the receiving end" know what it means.
Hon. Members who visit Cyprus at any time of the year will find the island a most agreeable place. The sun will be shining and in the moonlight the Aegean Sea looks wonderful. But if you have had a "basinful" of this for any length of time, it ceases to be quite so attractive. The place is hot and humid and, as was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), a number of our troops have been living under canvas. Many of them never get two consecutive nights in bed. They are almost perpetually confined to barracks. The beer is expensive and hot. They are being shot at and they do not like it.
It requires troops of the highest quality not to break down under this strain, and the fact that the majority of our troops have not done so is a credit to them. I agree that our troops have behaved as perhaps no other troops in the world would have behaved under similar circumstances, and it is right and proper that the House of Commons should pay tribute to them.
It is also right and proper that we should expect from all the forces a standard of discipline which is as near exemplary as human ingenuity can make it. There is no point in blinking our eyes at the fact that there have been breakdowns in discipline and that they have not been confined to Cyprus. On 30th April I questioned the Minister about a happening in Germany when the King's Regiment, the Gloucester Regiment, became involved in a fracas in which a British soldier was killed and five others were injured. That sort of thing is happening and it ought not to happen. These breakdowns in discipline occur because the officers and N.C.O.s have not effective control. It would not happen in the crack units—it does not happen in the Guards battalions.
One must remember that these things have happened and there are reasons for them. The constant postings, and so on—all have had their effect. When we


consider Cyprus, we must remember the conditions in which the troops live. But there is also another factor, the presence of married families in Cyprus. We can draw a comparison between what happened in Cyprus and what happened in Palestine. I am indebted to Field Marshal Montgomery, for in his memoirs it is stated that on 20th January, 1947, he, as C.I.G.S.—not a Minister, but the Field Marshal himself—gave an order that no more families were to go to Palestine.
To use his own words, Field Marshal Montgomery said, on page 470 of his book:
As I did not know where the Government policy might lead us, I ordered that no more Army families were to be allowed to go to Palestine. A day later the High Commissioner adopted an even more drastic policy, ordering that all British women and children…were to be evacuated…
At that time there were in Palestine 90,000 British troops, and the number of families was 172. Field Marshal Montgomery tells us later in his memoirs that, after all, things had not really got had at that stage. He defines what he regards as bad as two people being killed a day. There were 172 British families, wives and children, in a station in which there were 90,000 British troops.
How many Service wives and children are in Cyprus at present? I put down a Question which was for Written Answer yesterday. There are 13,000 Service women and children in Cyprus at present. There are only 16 major units, about 26,000 men, possibly a few more. There are two soldiers to every woman or child. What must that mean in terms of guarding them? What is the effect of this anxiety on morale?
Of course, articles have appeared in the Press. In the Daily Mirror, I remember, there was a statement demanding that women and children should be brought back. It may be that there are many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in all parts at the House who think that families should be withdrawn. But it is not as simple as that. Those hon. Gentlemen who have agreed with the Government's man-power policy have also to face up to this. This is one of the consequences of their actions, because if they withdraw the families in Cyprus then they have got to turn it from a three-year station into a one-year. They cannot separate young

men from their families for periods of much more than a year, except in exceptional circumstances, and the Cyprus troubles may go on for many years.
Of course, it is quite impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to face up to that. Indeed, the Daily Telegraph, which is an extremely well-informed paper, tells us of the recent withdrawals of the Guards Brigade and the 19th Brigade from Cyprus. At the very moment when things are getting very much worse we are withdrawing troops from Cyprus, and that is because of the reorganisation taking place and the running down of the Army. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I am relying—perhaps I ought not to rely—upon the authority of a Government journal, which is generally well informed on this subject. It is clear that two brigades have been withdrawn at this stage. We are left with the problem of 13,000 women and children in Cyprus, and if my explanation is not the right one, when the hon. Gentleman replies to the debate perhaps he will tell us.
This, I suggest, is tied up acutely with the problem of morale in Cyprus. Of course the troops resent attacks upon their families. How many hon. Gentlemen in this House would not resent such attacks upon their families? The troops are concerned and worried about it. Perhaps the military action the situation may require is hamstrung by this very considerable number of women and children there.
This is not all of the story. I go back to the point I made earlier, about the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War for the internal administration of the Army.
The Minister of Defence came back on the eve of the Conservative Party Conference and was interviewed at London Airport. For greater accuracy, I have a copy of what he said. He was asked whether the families were to be withdrawn. "Oh, no," he said," not at present at any rate, though we shall, naturally, go on watching the situation very closely."
It would be wrong of me, and I should be out of order, to doubt the veracity of the right hon. Gentleman, or to suggest here that he was in any way being disingenuous, but he did not tell the country all the truth. He did not say what, in fact, is the truth, that a standstill order


was issued on 15th July. If hon. Gentlemen would care to look at the Written Answer I got they will see that since last July only four members of families have gone to Cyprus. Quite likely the Minister of Defence did not know what was happening. If he did not know what was happening he should not answer for the Army At any rate, when the Minister of Defence said that there was no question of our withdrawing families from Cyprus there was already a standstill order which had been issued and which, as I understand, is to he reviewed in the middle of this month.
It is a difficult situation. There is no easy way out, but we have to recognise that in a situation like that in Cyprus we have to be careful about making the most fatal mistake of all, and that is, the House of Commons adopting policies, and leaving the troops to carry the candle, because the Government have not the guts to face up to the situation thereby created.
I make this protest now, not for the first time. I have said it over and over again. I know the problem through my own very humble Army service in between the wars. I met this problem. I was at the receiving end of this kind of situation. The troops were sent to Constantinople at the time of the Kemalist troubles, and they went to Iraq at the time of the Arab revolt, and then to Palestine, and into Egypt, and down to the Sudan, and then to China. These various troubles came out of the headlines and the House of Commons went on with its business, but the poor troops had to pay the price.
Once again our troops are paying the price, this time in Cyprus. I protest against this. I protest against the actions of the Government and I protest against a situation which is being allowed to drift. I protest for rather different reasons from those of hon. Gentlemen who are concerned with the problem in Cyprus for political reasons. I am looking at this, as I have to do in these debates, from a strictly military point of view. We are faced with a political situation and we lack the military means to carry it through, and the result is that the price has to be paid by the troops and their families.
I want to go a little further into the situation in which our troops find themselves in Cyprus. It seems to me quite

clear that the Secretary of State for War and his advisers have not used the powers which exist under the Army Act and which they should use. I have said already, and I repeat, that as far as I am concerned he takes the brickbats and he takes the bouquets, for he is the person responsible. What he ought to do is to inform himself of the facts. He has no right whatever, nor has the Minister of Defence, nor has any hon. Gentleman on the back benches, because it is politically convenient, to go to the Tory Party Conference and use the troops as an excuse to get a tremendous ovation. That is not good enough.
The right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Defence, when they went to BlacKpool, knew what had happened on 3rd October. It was his duty, if not that of the commander on the spot, to have ordered a court of inquiry. To order a court of inquiry in the Army is not a fishing operation. It is not to discover unpleasant facts with which to beat political opponents. It is machinery through which the facts are established. Under Section 135 there is power to order a court of inquiry composed of officers subject to military law, and under which directions can be given that the court should not express an opinion, its job being to ascertain the facts.
But the right hon. Gentleman never did that. The Minister of Defence is his political boss. Did the Minister of Defence suggest it? Anyhow, it was not done.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman says I did not inform myself. It is my duty to ascertain the facts. I did so. It is not. as he says, necessary to go through a court of inquiry. It is not so. It is the duty of the Secretary of State for War to ascertain the facts of the case and act upon them as he thinks right. It does not mean that one has to set up a court of inquiry any time the hon. Gentleman asks for it.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman is being cheap. I have not pressed him on the point. It is true that I wrote a letter to the Daily Mirror, using restraint in asking whether a court of inquiry had been held. I have not badgered the right hon. Gentleman on the point. Of course he is acquainted with the facts. He doubtless sent a signal to Cyprus and asked for


a report on what had happened, but that is not the same thing as holding a court of inquiry, because the right hon. Gentleman is not only responsible to the Tory Party Conference. He is responsible to the House of Commons and to public opinion.
I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have seen that he would strengthen his hand enormously it he said, "On so-and-so, such-and-such a thing happened. I have ordered a court of inquiry and when I receive its report I will make a further statement." The case in Germany on 30th April and the happenings in Cyprus on 3rd October were cases for an objective and searching examination to discover whether they were large or small incidents and so that the right hon. Gentleman could tell the House what had happened.
I want to refer to what happened with the Royal Ulster Rifles on 3rd October. The matter should not be allowed to pass without comment. There is no doubt that on that day there was looting. Articles were stolen from a shop, not of any great value. There was looting involving a sum of £100. A corporal, we are told, is dealt with severely for distributing leaflets. Was anybody brought into account for the articles looted that day? Was anybody deal with summarily, and, if so, why was he not tried by court-martial? Financial recompense was made to the owner of the shop. Was that paid from public funds or by the C.O. or from regimental funds?
When these things happen they do not besmirch the honour of the British Army. unless they are hidden away and hushed up. The British Army is composed of good and bad, much more good than bad. But bad things sometimes happen. The Army gets besmirched only if these things have to be dragged into the light of day. If they are not dealt with authoritatively and responsibly in our national newspapers we can be quite sure that they will appear in the Greek newspapers and in countries not friendly to us.
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, after all, we have gone through similar phases in the past. If the troops on the spot know that they have the full and sympathetic backing not only of the Secretary of State and his party but of the House of Commons as a whole, but

that any case of wrongdoing will not be hidden but will be brought into the open and the facts examined with due allowance made for the difficult circumstances in which they are working, we shall have a much healthier atmosphere than we have had in the past
The situation in Cyprus may last a long time and there may be other incidents. What I am trying to do, therefore, without going into the politics of the situation, is to find a basis of sympathy and understanding between the Greek community and the Army. If the Greek community know that here in the House of Commons, while understanding all the difficulties, we shall not cover up any wrongdoing, that seems to me to be a step in the right direction. If we can secure that feeling, rather than the feeling of intense fanatical hatred between our forces and the Greeks, we might be in sight of the happy state when they start playing football again, because the tradition of British troops in occupied territories, carrying out internal security, is that the guards play cricket or football with the prisoners.
That is what we are after if we can obtain it, because that is the tradition behind the kind of discipline and behind the Army Act which we are discussing today. As I have said on previous occasions, the Act is not primarily a code of discipline but a way of living, based on respect and honour and duty. If, in the difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves, we apply these principles, not only internally, but externally, we shall be serving the interests of the British Army and of all the things for which it stands.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Emanuel Shinwell: I do not care very much for the present Government. Indeed, I should be delighted if, after the next Election, they completely disappeared. Nevertheless, I am ready to concede to the Government and to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War the benefit of the doubt in his assumption that the Government will reach their manpower target by 1963. I go further and, in spite of all that is said to the contrary, I hope that the Government meet with success.
I shall tell the House why. It is because, in company with many others on both sides of the House, I want to


get rid of National Service. For a long time now, in company with my hon. Friends, I have pleaded for the abolition of National Service, first of all in principle and, more particularly, because I regard it as an obstacle to the recruitment of a satisfactory and adequate voluntary Army.
I believe that that view is generally accepted, but there is this qualification which I wish to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), in an interjection, pinpointed what many others, with myself, regard as fundamental in relation to this issue. It is whether by 1963, and indeed preceeding 1963 because we cannot afford to wait until that year, we have succeeded in reducing our overseas commitments. It appears to me that in view of the rumours that are current about the intention of the Minister of Defence to retain about 55,000 men in the West under the control of S.H.A.P.E., and having regard to the possibility of our requirements in Cyprus for some years to come, with Hong Kong and other theatres in the Far East, with Aden, the Middle East and all the rest, it is extremely doubtful whether the target which the Government have set themselves in relation to Army requirements will be satisfactory.
I am one of those who believe that it is far better to deploy conventional forces than to put all our eggs in the nuclear basket. That has been said by several others in the course of our debates. Their view, and mine, has been reinforced by Field Marshal Lord Montgomery in the speech which he made recently to the Royal United Service Institute. He has departed somewhat from the views he expressed a few years ago about concentrating our attention on the so-called deterrent. He now calls for the use of conventional forces on the assumption, which I think well-founded, that we may be faced with a continuation of the cold war for many years to come while at the same time we need not concern ourselves unduly and desperately about the possibility of a major war in which nuclear weapons are likely to be used.
The Government must pay attention to the criticism directed against them in relation to these possibilities. So, whilst we wish the Government well because we agree about the need for the abolition

of National Service at the earliest possible moment, at the same time they must use every possible endeavour to step up recruitment, particularly as regards the recruitment of men in the three Services who are ready to serve the longer engagement.
We cannot debate the Grigg Report today, but perhaps I can say that I welcome it. I think it is an excellent Report, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) rightly said. We shall debate it one of these days and we shall be asking the Government whether they are going to implement every one of the recommendations, particularly adequate equipment for the members of the forces. After all, it is no use having the forces if they are not supplied with the right equipment, and I have grave doubts whether at present adequate equipment is available. That, however, is a matter we can discuss at a later stage.
This evening I want to direct attention to a matter which I ventured to raise last Thursday in the course of the debate on foreign affairs. It has been referred to by several of my hon. Friends in the course of this debate, namely, the need for evacuating the wives and children from Cyprus. What I said last Thursday has been reinforced by the arguments adduced this afternoon and it bears on the subject of discipline. Let us make no mistake about that. If we want a high measure of discipline in Cyprus let us remove as early as we can the anxieties of our troops in that island.
I think it was the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) who said that it was a police operation in Cyprus. Well, it is a remarkable police operation, having regard to the number of casualties, the dangers that beset the men, the ambushes, the shootings, and the rest of it. To me it is much more than a police operation; it is more in the nature of warfare. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War—perhaps he will reply at once—whether these men are regarded as being on active service? If they are on active service the wives and children ought not to be associated with them in this operation. On the other hand, if they are not so regarded, we ought to be assured to that effect and we ought to consider what that actually means.
It seems to me that the evacuation of women End children from Cyprus has a bearing on discipline. It is also an action that ought to be undertaken by the Government at the earliest possible moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley was right in his reservation because he pointed out that if the wives and children are evacuated from Cyprus obviously we cannot ask the men to accept a three-year tour of duty. The men must be brought home to this country from time to time and that will entail considerable transport arrangements. All this has to be considered by the Government.
There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer. I seldom disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, but I could not follow him in what he said about any intervention in this House by hon. Members about the decision taken by the G.O.C. and the Secretary of State for War in connection with the detention sentence imposed on one of our soldiers who distributed some anti-E.O.K.A. leaflets. After all, we are entitled to discuss this matter outside this House. I am certain that if I went to my constituency in the course of the next few days and wanted to discuss the matter, nobody would stop me, not even my hon. Friend.

Mr. Wigg: I do not want to stop my right hon. Friend, but I should hate to see him in Brixton for contempt of court. If the sentence has been confirmed and the lad's legal advisers have lodged an appeal, perhaps my right hon. Friend will be told whether he is likely to be charged with contempt or not. The main reason why he should not discuss the sentence is that he may be prejudicing the young man's chances if he goes to appeal.

Mr. Shinwell: I doubt it. I have myself been Secretary of State for War and have had to deal with cases not altogether unlike this one and to decide whether or not to confirm sentence, and it never occurred to me that anybody was likely to be brought up for contempt of court because he ventured to express an opinion about an action taken by the Secretary of State for War. In any event, if I am arraigned for contempt of court and I find myself in Brixton, it would not be the first time that I have been a guest of one of Her Majesty's institutions. My

hon. Friend need not worry about that; it would merely mean a temporary absence from this assembly, and, so far as I can gather, my absence would be accepted with the customary fortitude of hon. Members. I am satisfied that we are entitled as hon. Members to comment, not necessarily adversely but objectively, on a decision taken either by the G.O.C. or by the Secretary of State for War, but I am more concerned about the merits of this matter than I am about the legal and technical aspects of it.
It occurred to me when I read about this incident, and the sentence of detention imposed on this soldier, that perhaps too little consideration was accorded to the emotional disturbance emerging from the conditions prevailing in Cyprus. I am not so satisfied myself that in those circumstances I would not have undertaken even more desperate expedients. To put it mildly, even the most normal person is bound to be upset when our lads are being shot in the back. When soldiers of Her Majesty's Armed Forces are called upon to undertake an unpalatable and distasteful duty, they are bound to be disturbed when they see their comrades ambushed and the victims of explosions, and when they meet dangers almost every hour and minute of the day. One can accept dangers, and soldiers are expected to meet them, but to have their children affected in this ghastly and dastardly fashion is bound to upset even the most normal person.
I read the other day, after the speech I ventured to make last Thursday, something which pinpointed the arguments I adduced for the evacuation of wives and children from Cyprus. It was to the effect that a boy of 17 years, who might have been one of our own boys, was shot in the back going to work. He was an innocent, unsuspecting lad and was there not because he wished to be there—probably he would have preferred to be at home—but because he quite fortuitously found himself in Cyprus. Never mind about who is responsible, never mind about Government policy; we are not debating it at this stage. To be shot down on the threshold of a career is a terrible thing. I am bound to say that in those circumstances, however balanced I regard myself mentally, I might easily be disturbed and responsible not only for the


issue of an anti-E.O.K.A. leaflet but I might be guilty of something even worse. So the idea of passing a sentence of detention on this man, who, I understand from reading the newspapers—

Mr. Speaker: I regret very much to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I should like to be assured that the sentence is not subject to review, because if it is the matter is still sub judice and we should not pursue it in the House.

Mr. Shinwell: I understand that we had information this afternoon that the conviction had been confirmed but the sentence reduced. However, under the court-martial appeal provision which I introduced in the House some years ago file man has a right of appeal. The man may not avail himself of that right, but may accept the reduced sentence of fifty-six days' detention. That is why I think we are entitled to raise the subject.
However, Mr. Speaker, I am coming to my conclusion. I was about to say that I read in the newspapers that the man came out of the court ashen-faced, grey, miserable, reduced to the ranks and to suffer a period of detention. I am bound to say that I had a great deal of sympathy with him, rather less sympathy with the G.O.C. and even less sympathy with the Secretary of State far War. I think that in the circumstances, while exacting the highest possible discipline from our forces and not expecting them to retaliate, we might have been a little lenient and understood how the man's mind had been affected by the conditions in which he found himself. That is why I feel that the sooner we get the women and children out the better it will be. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who I know is just as sympathetic about these matters as my hon. Friends and I are, will address his mind to the matter and bring some pressure to bear on the Minister of Defence, because this affects not only the Army but the two other Services as well.
Finally, I wish to say how pleased I am to hear about the recruiting figures. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has been very industrious in his study of the problem. I believe that is generally admitted. It is very fine to have someone who will delve into the details of these intricate and complicated subjects. That is satisfactory to indolent

people like some of us are who rely on industrious people in order to make their speeches.

Mr. Wigg: I thank my right hon. Friend very much indeed.

Mr. Shinwell: I never reject my hon. Friend's facts, though I often reject his opinions, which is a different matter. He has done a great deal of work which hon. Members in all parts of the House recognise as being very valuable, but it may be that he is a little pessimistic about the future. I say "it may be"; I would not put it higher or even lower than that. I am an optimist about getting rid of National Service and an optimist about building up an adequate voluntary force which can be a credit to our country.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: The whole House will agree with the view just expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). There cannot be one of us who wants to see the retention of National Service. We all want a first-class volunteer Army.
It may be put on record that, irrespective of whether we agree or disagree with him, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has rendered a service in the past, and is rendering a service now, by reason of some of the facts upon which he has argued his case against the Government.
The problem is that we are dealing with figures all the time and there is very much doubt whether even the recent figures make my right hon. Friend right or make others right. I shall try to show what the answer is. The Government hope, properly, to have 147,000 men in the Regular Army by 1963, and in the light of their recruiting figures at the moment, based particularly on man-years, I do not think there is any denying that it looks as though they will just about achieve that and no more.
What has so often been argued in this House, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, is that one of the problems is that there are so few men on whom the Government can call. I am not one of those who believe that it is necessarily one in three or one in four; the real background to the problem is that we have an unpredictable source


of recruitment. The soldier himself is the finest advertisement for the Army, and if Army service and conditions are of such a character that he can become a recruiting sergeant I do not think any of us can assess what the future has in store for us in respect of the volunteer Army.
We have been told by means of graphs and figures that one in four is the most that we can hope for from the number available. Even only one in four is a possibility for the Army. What it adds up to is that the other part of the community is otherwise engaged. I cannot necessarily accept those figures as being absolutely sacred; unlike my hon. Friend, I find them very dubious indeed. I am very dubious about the proportion of 15 per cent. who are unsuitable for the Army. How is that percentage broken down?
Mr. Speaker has ruled that we can discuss recruitment on the Army Act, and I ask the Minister whether we can be given figures showing the actual ages of those who joined the Army as Regulars last year. It is always assumed that everyone joins the Army at 18. For the sake of the argument which has been adduced here again and again, and by means of graphs and figures, we have been shown that 18 is the age upon which so much has been based. It would be a useful statistic for many of us if we could be told how many men over the age of 18 volunteered as Regulars during the last year.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington mentioned another very important matter, discipline, and the subject was also dealt with effectively earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). I agree with those who say that discipline is different in every command and that what is good discipline in one command is not necessarily good in another. I will give a personal experience of how discipline can be ruined. During the war I was in charge of a section of men, and I worked them on the principle of "job and finish". This meant that they frequently finished at 2.30 or 3.0 p.m., so they were able to leave much earlier than certain regulations allowed.
Discipline then entered into it, because we had a commanding officer who thought that this method was an absolutely retrograde step, and he insisted that the men

should stay at work until 5.0 p.m. It did not take us long to find out that the amount of work done in a day lasting until 5.0 p.m. was less than that done in a day lasting until about 3.0 p.m. The discipline in that camp might, on paper, have been good, but the output at the end of the day was deplorable. The sort of discipline that I am thinking about means a great deal; there is an adverse discipline which can affect recruitment.
There is a case which I should like to mention. I do not think I shall be questioned for doing so because the sentence has already been confirmed and the matter is not sub judice. It is a case nearer home, and most of the newspapers of the country have given enormous prominence to it. How it ever came to pass I do not know. It is the story of the young soldier, Corporal Munday, a wretched character, whose original crime was that he was absent without leave for 12 days. The reason for his absence was that his mother was seriously ill.

Mr. Amery: Corporal Munday yesterday put in a notice of appeal. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to know that.

Mr. Mellish: I hope that in this case the hon. Gentleman and his Department will bear in mind that it is impossible for the average Englishman to understand why such harsh treatment should be meted out in what appears to be, on the surface, a straight-forward, honest case, and particularly why there should he injustices and heavy sentences out of proportion to what would apparently be meted out in civilian life.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) referred to the discipline of our troops in Cyprus. He said that he was anxious to get peace in Cyprus, yet he wanted to kick the Greeks out of their houses, putting our troops in the houses and making the Greeks live under canvas. To get peace in Cyprus it would be much more logical to leave the Greeks in their houses and to have the Army show more imagination. Our troops have been in Cyprus long enough to have decent conditions by now.
It is unforgivable that our troops should have been in Cyprus for so long and yet not have adequate accommodation. The Cyprus story is very sad and desperate.


and if troops are still in tents the Army should be thoroughly ashamed of itself. Men who have served in Cyprus in such conditions return home and what they say to their friends is propaganda against the Army. We will not get increased recruitment against that sort of background.
Our troops have just returned from Jordan. Was any effort made to see that they got good conditions while they were in Jordan? Questions were asked about this, but we did not get satisfactory answers. When our men were serving in the heat of the desert, what arrangements were made to get them decent living conditions? In this atomic age, was imagination used in an effort to provide the men with air conditioning? I will bet that all that happened was that the men were issued with canvas tents and told, "Stay there until King Hussein says you can go home." I am not now dealing with the political arguments in these cases. I am saying that men who serve in bad conditions do not become good advocates for recruitment and I ask the Secretary of State to bear that in mind.
We have been somewhat confined today by having to keep our debate within the strictures which you laid down, Mr. Speaker. We will have to consider this matter of being confined to a mere skirmish around the subjects of recruitment and discipline. We will have to see whether we cannot have a debate which is more than a preliminary to the Army Estimates. It is a pity that we have not been able to deal in detail with the Grigg Report, which would have been very relevant and useful to this debate. I hope that the answers we get from the Government will show that their recruitment figures are to be justified by their actions so that we will get a worth-while Regular Army.

6.33 p.m

Mr. Emrys Hughes: We have heard a great deal about discipline in the Army. The purpose of the Bill is to put into operation certain rules and regulations which will secure discipline so that ordinary soldiers obey superior officers. I have not been able fully to understand when discipline begins. I presume that some military authorities would be able to explain to me that if two private soldiers met in the

canteen and organised a petition to the commanding officer to remove the sergeant major, that would be an offence against discipline. Equally, I believe that if two lieutenants or two majors came to the conclusion that their commanding officer was inefficient and incompetent, they would not be able to go to the general and ask for his removal.
However, at what point does that process end? I have taken a great deal of interest in the recent memoirs of Field Marshal Montgomery and in what he says about how discipline works in the higher ranks. It is quite wrong for ordinary soldiers to conspire to remove superior officers, but it appears to be in accordance with Army discipline for a field marshal to try to organise a conspiracy to unseat a Minister of Defence. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who knows something about this matter, is absent, because I should like to have had his expert advice about the point at which the disciplinary regulations of the Army come into operation. Apparently, they operate to prevent insubordination among the lower ranks, but break down when a high-ranking officer seeks to use his influence against a Cabinet Minister.
I am very pleased to know that there is a prospect that National Service will end in 1963. We are told that recruiting figures give us reason to believe that that will be so. As an opponent of conscription, I am very glad to know that there is some prospect of National Service ending, and I believe that that feeling will be shared by the great majority of people, especially young people, who look forward with dread to the prospect of being called up to do service which many of them now believe to be unnecessary.
The Secretary of State stopped at the most interesting point. He was confident that recruits would join the Army at such a rate that the target of 165,000 would be reached. He went on to say that sufficient officers were not coming forward. As an amateur strategist, I am puzzled to know what is to become of the Army if there are 165,000 men and not enough officers to run the Army.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that it would be out of order for him to deal with officers under


the Bill, because the Bill does not refer to them. Officers are governed by the Prerogative. The hon. Member is equally out of order in pursuing the subject now.

Mr. Hughes: I am sorry to have strayed beyond the bounds of order, but I cannot understand how the Regular Army is likely to be efficient if it is not able o act as an Army is supposed to act.
I agreed with a great deal of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Easing-ton said. Discipline in Cyprus would be considerably improved if the women and children were brought home. I carry that further and say that Army discipline would be greatly improved if the men were brought home, too. We have frequently been told that the Socialists are out to destroy family life, but I can see nothing more likely to destroy family life than sending the women and children away and leaving the men there.
I remember that when Cyprus first came under consideration, the previous Minister of Defence answered one of my questions about the discipline of a Scottish regiment. I asked why a certain Scottish regiment was being sent to Cyprus. That was over three years ago, and the reply I got was that it was only a temporary emergency. What sort of effect will it have on the discipline of the Army when soldiers realise that the people who send them to different places in the world have completely miscalculated events? There would he a great feeling of relief at home if not only the women and children but also the men were to be brought home from Cyprus.
I also agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easing-ton that much will depend upon the way in which we reduce our overseas commitments. Surely those commitments are considerable, and need to be cut. If Field Marshal Montgomery is right we are now spending an enormous amount of money in maintaining the Army in Germany—

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing about that matter in the Army Act. This is a Motion to continue the Army Act for another year, and I have ruled that the discussion must be on matters which are in that Act. The Act contains nothing about Field Marshal Montgomery, or about foreign commitments.

Mr. Hughes: I do not understand this discipline business. I bow to your Ruling,

Mr. Speaker, but I do not see how an ex-Minister of Defence, who has been in the upper hierarchy of government, can make an observation on military affairs and remain in order while a poor private like myself cannot do so.

Mr. Speaker: I can deal only with my own Rulings and what I hear myself. I did not have the pleasure of hearing the greater part of the speech of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I heard only his concluding remarks, about which I had occasion to ask whether the court-martial that he was inquiring about had been confirmed. He said that it had been. I now have the pleasure of listening to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I am dealing only with his speech at the moment. I hope that hon. Members will try to keep their remarks relevant to the Act, and endeavour to show why or why not it should be continued. That is the subject before the House.

Mr. Hughes: I am sorry that you did not have the pleasure of listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easing-ton, Mr. Speaker. I understand that if you had heard him he would have been disciplined at an early stage, and in that case I would not have been led astray.
Discipline in the Army must surely be affected by the opinion which soldiers hold of their officers. Discipline must suffer if the lower ranks have not sufficient confidence in the judgment of their superior officers. Field Marshal Montgomery's observations on the Army include the statement that officers are so overworked that they have no time to think. How can there be reasonable discipline in the Army when the lower orders read an observation by a high authority that the officers in charge of the whole organisation have no time to think?
I agree with Field Marshal Montgomery. Obviously, the officers do not have time to think. It is because I do not think that a large section of our youth should be under the control of officers who have no time to think, or of a Government or Ministers who have no time to think—and show no sign of learning how to think—that I look upon all these preparations with considerable misgivings.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has been referring to Field Marshal Montgomery and his observation that officers have no time to think. In that case, how does he expect field marshals to have time to keep their diaries, and so write their books?

Mr. Speaker: Field Marshal Montgomery does not come into the question.

6.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Julian Amery): Our debate has centred upon two main issues—the first being recruiting and the second discipline, with particular reference to Cyprus. A third question of whether officers have time to think has now been raised. I will not, however, dwell upon the last of these three subjects, because I am not clear to what provision of the Army Act I would hitch it.
In our debate last year, the party opposite and a certain number of my hon. Friends approached the prospect of recruiting with some pessimism. It was widely thought—certainly by the Front Bench spokesmen of the party opposite—that we had not moved fast enough in providing those inducements which would provide the requisite number of recruits. Winding up the debate from the Front Bench opposite, the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said:
On most of the major issues that have to be settled if recruiting is to be stimulated, we are no further forward than we were when the Government issued the Defence White Paper last April…'When are the Government going to start?'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 289]
The truth is that we had made rather more headway than has been generally realised, in the House of Commons or in the country, in putting conditions of pay in the Services upon a sounder basis. The compensation terms for those who became redundant showed the spirit in which the Government were approaching the problem. The pay increases had been foreshadowed, and certain anomalies, particularly in the field of allowances, had already been corrected.
This first recruiting campaign has, in itself, given us the results which we now see. I do not quarrel with the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) in the emphasis he has put upon pay, for it is a very important aspect of the matter.

We have, in our own way, come fairly close to his idea of the £10-a-week private, and, with the biennial review which we have undertaken in response to the recommendations of the Grigg Committee, I think we can feel confident that that aspect of conditions in the Army will remain upon a sound and healthy foundation.
The right hon. Gentleman said that nine months is a short time by which to judge, and he thinks that the present level will not be maintained. We are in no sense unduly complacent on this matter, but I do not take the pessimistic view of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) who says, quite firmly, that we shall never again have as good a month as last September.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to disagree with me, but he is not entitled to mispresent me. I never said that we would never have those figures again. I said that it would take much longer than the hon. Member had given himself.

Mr. Amery: I understood the hon. Member to say that he thought it would be a very long time before we approached the figures of last September.

Mr. Wigg: What is almost certain is that during next year we shall not get the September figures again.

Mr. Amery: I thought that he had cast his mind forward until 1963.

Mr. Wigg: I said "during next year."

Mr. Amery: Be that as it may, the hon. Member was certainly not a very good prophet when he said that:
the conclusion to be drawn from the recruiting figures points only in one direction. Unless the country is prepared to accept an Army of less than 100,000 men, some form of National Service must continue."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 253.]
I cannot help getting the impression that he is doubling his stakes on a losing game.

Mr. Wigg: All that one can do is to make a projection on the basis of the recruiting figures as they are. The hon. Member is quite entitled to make a projection on the present figures, and if he is absolutely confident that those figures will be maintained the result is inevitable. I just do not share that view.

Mr. Amery: I am not criticising the hon. Member for having taken that view last year, but I am criticising him for sticking to it this year.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) asked about the ages of Regular recruits. In the short time available I have not been able to get very recent figures, but those for 1955 show that the biggest age group is between 18 and 19. That accounts for 49 per cent. The second biggest group, which accounts for 27 per cent., is of the ages from 17½ to 18. Those over 21 form about 8 per cent.
I would also say this about the figures of one out of four or one out of three in Appendix A of the Grigg Committee's Report, about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. When we have made allowance for the element in the community which is unlikely, for one reason or another, to produce potential recruits, we must attract one out of fifteen of the total number coming up into the requisite age group.
The question whether or not we shall maintain the recruiting figures depends on two factors. One of them is not in our control—the bulge in the birth rate will, in the next three years, be coming into the recruiting age groups. The other depends on the results of applying the recommendations of the Grigg Committee, on which. I think, the House is agreed that the Government have acted with commendable promptitude.
In the debate last year, very grave doubts were thrown on the utility of having a Committee at all. The hon. Member for Dudley was very sceptical of the value of the Committee and so was the hon. Member for Fulham in his speech. He said that he doubted very much whether arguments of that kind would ever be resolved by the report of a committee, however eminent. I think that we can take a rather more sanguine view.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The hon. Gentleman quoted a phrase in which he said that I used an argument of that kind. What was the particular question or argument to which I was referring?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman had taken the view that we knew already all the factors influencing recruiting and that a committee would not get any further

in fixing the priorities than the House had already done. I would maintain that the Grigg Committee in its Report has given us a very clear lead, one on which the Government have acted and, I think, which the House as a whole has accepted.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will not go too far into the Grigg Committee's Report. I said at the opening of this debate that another day had been set apart for that, and we should wait in patience until that day comes round. Really it is not in the Army Act.

Mr. Amery: I was going to say that I feared that if I went any further on this I should be trespassing on the debate which we shall be holding at a future date. For the same reason, I must not say too much on the subject of accommodation, although that has been touched on by hon. Members.
In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) on the need for making the accommodation attractive in outlying parts, I can say that I was very impressed in my recent tour of South-East Asia by the progress made. This was particularly so in Malacca, where the buildings will be, I think, of an extremely attractive character.
There has been a certain amount of discussion on the problems of discipline. On the subject of "bull", which is related to that of discipline, the Grigg Committee gave us a pretty clean bill. We were able in the Army Estimates debate earlier this year to indicate some of the reforms which we were introducing. I think that the pressure which has been exerted from both sides of the House against "bull" over the last few years has had very full effect, and I should like to endorse what my right hon. Friend said at the beginning of the debate, that we must be careful not to fall into the other error of getting too lax in our standards. Discipline is, of course, simply the rules of order of the Army. We have had quite a good exercise in the debate this afternoon on keeping within points of Parliamentary order.
On the subject of courts-martial, about which I was asked for some figures, I would say that there is no very clear trend up or down over the last three years. The percentage of courts-martial


to the strength of the Army has been something under 2 per cent.—1·2, 1·28, 1·19 per cent. over the last three years.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: When I was in the Army I had the unfortunate experience of coming before a court-martial. Courts-martial then had to consist of officers. How are we to have courts-martial if we have not sufficient officers?

Mr. Amery: I would be trespassing on the rules of order if I were to discuss how we are to supply enough officers, but I am satisfied, as is my right hon. Friend, that we shall overcome the problem.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing, speaking of discipline, pointed out that there is a very strong tendency for those units and corps which have the strictest discipline to get more recruits. This is a fact with which all those who have studied military problems will be familiar. I was struck when in the South-East Asia theatre recently to find that a unit of S.A.S., which could only be joined by volunteers, had the boast that there were more sergeants outside the sergeants' mess, who had come down in rank to join the S.A.S., than there were sergeants in the sergeants' mess. I think that it is common experience that morale is always higher on active service where conditions of discipline are inevitably more stringent. There has been discussion on discipline, particularly in relation to Cyprus.

Mr. Shinwell: Why is the hon. Member turning over so many pages?

Mr. Amery: Because they would hardly be in order.
I should like on the question of discipline in Cyprus to say how very struck I was, and how glad I think we all are, that this delicate and, in many ways, controversial matter was discussed with a very wide measure of agreement on both sides of the House. There was only one political issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West, with which I must disagree. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of events which he referred to as being the responsibility and fault of the Government. I must make it quite clear that there have been no serious breaches of discipline, and I am bound to say to the right hon. Gentleman that, if there were to be at any time in the future, it

would be quite wrong to lay the responsibility and fault entirely at the Government's door. The Opposition have to bear their share of responsibility for having given encouragement, no doubt unwittingly, to those forces in Cyprus which are responsible for the emergency. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Surely that is enough about Cyprus. I do not see anything about it in the Act which we propose continuing.

Mr. Wigg: Is it not outrageous, Mr. Speaker, that a Member of the Government, at the close of the debate, should make insinuations of that kind when he cannot be answered?

Mr. Speaker: I understood that the hon. Member was answering something that was said in the course of the debate. I allowed that to be said because it is very hard to stop an answer being given. If it was not said, of course I am wrong, but I understood from him that something of that sort was said. I do not think that it should go further.

Mr. Amery: I was attempting to reply to the observation of the right hon. Gentleman that it was Government policy that was responsible.

Mr. Strachey: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that I was saying that Government policy had resulted in breaches of discipline in Cyprus and he denied that there had been such breaches. I said most carefully that I did not know. I have not the evidence on Famagusta. I am saying, and surely the hon. Gentleman cannot deny this, that it is Government policy which is responsible for the fact that there are nearly 30,000 troops in Cyprus in this situation and that has inevitably serious consequences upon the discipline of the Army. That is all I say as to the Government's responsibility and that, I should have thought, was not in dispute.

Mr. Amery: I was merely observing that the policy of the Opposition was to some extent responsible for our keeping 30,000 troops in Cyprus.
To turn from this more controversial issue to the serious internal security problem confronting the Army, I think that, on the whole, there will be no disagreement that the standards of discipline


maintained in Cyprus have been extremely high. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said that discipline depended upon confidence in the Higher Command. I think that the high standard of discipline of our soldiers in Cyprus is attributable to confidence in the higher command. I hope that the House will remember the words used by the hon. and learned Member when he said that if we have more consideration for the enemy than for our own men we shall not get discipline in the Army.

Mr. Mellish: I am trying to recollect the words used by the Under-Secretary. As I recollect it, he said that we have 30,000 British troops in Cyprus today because of the policy of the Opposition. That is an absolutely scandalous and outrageous thing to say. All the time we have been arguing against our men being kept in Cyprus—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is out of order.

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman ought not to have said it—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question of Cyprus and Government and Opposition policy in Cyprus ought not to have been raised by hon. Members in this debate.

Mr. Amery: I was answering a comment made by the right hon. Member for Dundee, West.
I do not think I should add anything further regarding the court-martial case over the distribution of anti-E.O.K.A. leaflets to which several hon. Members have referred, beyond saying that any observations they have made will be looked at carefully.
The question of the presence of families in Cyprus is a difficult one and two issues are involved. Having the families there presents certain problems for the security forces in protecting them. On the other hand, if they are not present, morale may suffer and, at any rate, the advantages and pleasures of family union are lost. It is, therefore, necessary to balance the factors carefully. Is it better for the Army as a whole that the troops should have their wives and children with them in spite of the risks? After all, they are not very great risks.

Or is it better that the families should not be there? On balance, we take the view—I think that on reflection hon. Members would agree—that it would be wrong to withdraw, by compulsory Governmental decision, those families which are at present in Cyprus, and that it is better for morale that they should remain there.

Mr. Mellish: No other families are being allowed to go to Cyprus.

Mr. Amery: I am coming to that.
We have made it possible for all those who are anxious about their families, to repatriate them to England at public expense without prejudice to their being able to return should the character of the emergency change or if it should end completely. They can return to Cyprus at public expense provided that the officer or other rank concerned still has the statutory period of six months to serve in Cyprus.
It is true that in July we decided not to allow any more families to go to, Cyprus so as not to add to the burden on the security forces. I see no inconsistency between the decision arrived at in July and the decision to allow families already in Cyprus to remain there. We hope that conditions may soon be such as to allow families to go to Cyprus again and think it would be a great mistake to withdraw by Government decision the large numbers at present in Cyprus, when there is a reasonable hope—

Mr. Mellish: Surely there must be great aggravation among troops whose families are not allowed to go to Cyprus when they see the families of other men already there? It is wrong to say that there is, nothing illogical about that decision. It is ridiculous.

Mr. Amery: I see no inconsistency in it. If the situation improves, we shall review the decision and it may well be that we shall again be able to allow families to go to Cyprus in the future.
The hon. Member for Dudley referred to a case of looting in Famagusta the other day. There is a court-martial pending, and therefore the case is sub judice and the hon. Member will understand if I do not comment on it. I can tell him, however, that the money concerned was from regimental and not from public funds.
The hon. Member also referred to the need to build up sympathy between the troops and the Greek community in Cyprus. Where the British Army is concerned that is a natural thing. The other day there was a rather serious fire in Nicosia. The Army turned out, and not only did the troops do their normal duty in helping the civil power to put out the fire but there were many instances of the soldiers doing a great deal to help individual Greek families to save property and even lives.
I think we are agreed that the general standard of British Army discipline remains high. I think, also, that we are agreed that the prospects for recruiting are good, though there may be a difference among us about how good they are. The reforms recommended by the Grigg Committee and those undertaken before that, in the period since the White Paper was published in 1957, may be said to constitute a charter for the Regular soldier. We consider that the recommendations of the Grigg Committee not yet accepted are a signpost to the main problems remaining to be reviewed.
In view of what has been happening in other parts of the world, I think it important that our debate today has confirmed our traditional belief, and the efficacy of that belief, in Parliamentary control over the Armed Forces.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Draft Army Act, 1955 (Continuation) Order, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.

Orders of the Day — AIR FORCE ACT (CONTINUATION)

7.8 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): I beg to move,
That the Draft Air Force Act, 1955 (Continuation) Order, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.
The procedure for prolonging, year by year, the life of the Air Force Act is precisely the same as the procedure under which the Army Act is annually renewed. The House will not, therefore, expect me to embark on a detailed explanation. Briefly, the Act will expire at the end of this year unless, in accordance with Section 224, Her Majesty provides, by Order in Council, that it shall remain in force for a further twelve months. The Order has to be laid before Parliament and approved by an affirmative Resolution of each House. After four successive Orders in Council, of which the Draft Order we are now considering will be the second, there will be a full-scale review of the Act by a Select Committee, and then further legislation will be necessary.
I wish, first, to say a word about the Act itself. During the 22 months it has been in operation it has worked more smoothly, and the experience of the past year has confirmed our debt to the Select Committee which was responsible for reviewing the Act which it replaced. Some of its provisions have not yet been tested, but we are now out of what I think we might call the transitional period and can begin to claim that it stands up to the test of time extremely well.
I wish to deal with one or two points which were raised when we debated the Order in Council last year. On that occasion the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) paid tribute to the historical introduction to the Manual of Air Force Law. He asked whether it would be possible to publish this as a supplementary pamphlet so that it could have the widest possible circulation within the Service. This has now been done and the pamphlet is available to any Member of the Royal Air Force who asks for it. We think that it will be of real value in keeping alive interest in the earlier history of the Royal Air Force and pride in its traditions, and we are grateful to the hon. Member for his suggestion.
The hon. Member for Dudley also asked whether we would consider the publication of some annual statistcs about medical treatment and so on, and about the educational certificates which men gain while they are in the Service. On the first point, I think he had in mind the Annual Report on the British Army which was published before the war, but there is no R.A.F. equivalent. We had been considering how far we could provide the kind of information for which he was asking. There is a regular Report on the health of the Royal Air Force and the Women's Royal Air Force, and I am arranging for copies of this Report to be placed in the Library.
Statistics on education are rather more difficult to produce. I am informed that to produce them would entail a great deal of extra work at a time when we are making rather special efforts to cut down the administrative staffs as much as we can. For this reason, I have reluctantly concluded that we ought not to undertake to produce regular figures which, if they were to be of any value at all, would have to go into considerable detail. Nonetheless, if there is information which hon. Gentlemen want to have on particular aspects of these subjects I shall, of course, be happy to supply it.
Thirdly, I had the pleasure of hearing the admirable speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, and particularly the point about the administration of justice in the Army. Hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Dudley, showed great interest in the matter. I have one or two similar figures which I hope will also interest the House and which will go some way towards meeting the request which was put last year by the hon. Member for Dudley that we should produce figures about courts-martial.
I take the year beginning on 1st October, 1957, and ended on 1st September last, during which the number of men court-martialled totalled 672. During the same period, the average size of the Royal Air Force was 191,000, which gives us an average of 3·5 men court-martialled per thousand officers and airmen. This afternoon, hon. Gentlemen listening to similar figures for the Army asked how those figures compared with previous years, so I have armed myself with the figures for the Royal Air Force

covering the same period in 1956–57. During that time 743 men were court-martialled which, with an average sin of the Royal Air Force of 228,000, gives us an average of 3·25 per thousand officers and men.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the right hon. Gentleman, without taking too much trouble, give us a breakdown of those figures so as to show what the majority of the men were court-martialled for?

Mr. Ward: I will consider that question as I always like to consider suggestions made by the hon. Member. I do not think it will lead to any particularly valuable conclusion, but I will see how much work it will entail.

Mr. George Wigg: One of the things which strikes me is that the Royal Air Force figure for courts-martial seems to be 80 per cent. higher than that of the Army. The incidence of courts-martial in the Army is about 2 per cent. less than those given for the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Christopher Boyd: They are much more high-spirited people.

Mr. Ward: My recollection is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War did not give a breakdown into the percentage per thousand.

Mr. Wigg: During his speech the Secretary of State for War offered to give us figures later on, and the Under-Secretary of State duly gave the figures. to us.

Mr. Ward: I will certainly look into that point. It will be interesting to know how the two Services compare.
On appeals, in the calendar year 1957, only four appeals went to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, and all were rejected. During 1958, there has been only one such appeal, and it is at present awaiting hearing by the court. Without looking more carefully into how these figures compare with the other two Services, I think the figure 3·5 per cent. per thousand which I have given reflects considerable credit on the standard of administration of justice in the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I understood that it was 3·5 per thousand,


whilst the Army figure was just under 2 per cent. In that case, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air can claim a great deal more credit for the Air Force than he has done.

Mr. Ward: I do not remember exactly how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War put his figures, but mine are certainly per thousand, and they reflect credit on the administration of justice and upon the legal authorities.
Now I turn to recruiting. Section 4 of the Act discusses terms of enlistment. The recruiting picture as a whole is undoubtedly much better than it was twelve months ago. What is particularly encouraging is the way in which the figures have kept up in the past three months when there is usually a seasonal trough. The satisfactory figures for September, announced only two days ago, will have been noted by hon. Members.
Looking at the first nine months of this year and comparing them with the figures for the same period in 1957, we see that more than 16,000 apprentices. boys and airmen have come into the Royal Air Force on Regular engagements. This is 2,700, or about 17 per cent. more than in the same period in 1957. Of course, as hon. Members will appreciate, it is important not only to compare the number of men joining on Regular engagements but also to take the length of engagement for which they sign. Here the figures are even more striking. More than 4,000 men have entered for nine years or more so far during 1958, and that is twice as many as entered during the same period in 1957.
I do not like forecasting because I think it is dangerous, and because it is almost impossible to judge exactly what factors may affect recruiting in the next three years. Provided that our current recruiting level is maintained we shall get enough men to produce the all-Regular Force which we have laid down by 1963. I would however say a word of warning, of which the hon. Member for Dudley is well aware.
Our success, encouraging though it is, is not being distributed equally through all fields and all skills. In more than half the trades we are getting all the men we want. In fact, if the present trend carries on we shall reach the stage of having a surplus in certain trades unless we take restrictive action. In certain

other trades we are still running short and tending not to get enough people of high enough quality. These all show a shortage, but none is very serious. One way to help to solve the problem is to reduce the number of people we need in those trades. We can only tackle that by such measures as work study, civilianisation and so on, and we are doing that as far as we can.
The figures I have just given refer to recruiting from outside, that is to say from civil life. But it is of interest to look at the figures for internal recruiting, that is to say men already in the Service on either National Service or short-term engagements who wish to stay on and prolong their length of service. These figures are interesting from two points of view. Firstly, of course, there is the direct contribution they make to the all-Regular Force in so far as those who extend their service to after 1963. But it is just as interesting to study the trend of these figures because they help to indicate the feeling within the service about a career in the R.A.F. And so they are, in an indirect way, a commentary on the attractiveness of life in the Royal Air Force to those already serving. Looked at from this point of view the figures are encouraging.
Perhaps I could quote a few examples. For the first nine months of 1958 the number of airmen in ground trades who extended their length of service was 9,351. This is an increase of 31 per cent. as compared with the number who prolonged their service in the comparable nine months of 1957. Furthermore, if we look at the airmen who are on 3, 4 and 5 year engagements, we see a very promising trend. In the first quarter of 1957, of those airmen who were due to complete such engagements 9 per cent. asked to prolong their service. This percentage has steadily risen in successive quarters and is now running at about 16 per cent.
The general effect of this internal recruiting is that it is a most valuable source of airmen on longer engagements. On the 1st January of this year they made up 36 per cent. of the total ground strength of the R.A.F.; by the end of September this year the proportion had risen to 46 per cent. and the actual numbers had increased by just over 7,000. I need hardly stress that it is on the longer service airmen we depend for


our senior N.C.O. posts and our advanced technical skills. I hope I have not overdone the figures. I suggest they indicate that those who have tasted life in the R.A.F. like it and that the proportion who extend increases significantly with the length of time they have served.
What conclusions can I draw? I suggest that there are three. The Act which we have before us tonight is working well and lays down satisfactory principles for the personal administration of the Royal Air Force. Secondly, the Act over the years, coupled with the very high standard of leadership throughout the history of the Royal Air Force, has built up a tradition of good conduct. Thirdly, the recruiting figures which I have quoted show that the conditions of service laid down for the Royal Air Force are continuing to prove attractive and I am confident that these conditions of service should work admirably for the Regular Royal Air Force to which we are moving ahead so well, and to which we look forward.

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from the remainder of this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Sir Charles MacAndrew, the Chairman of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I should like to thank the Minister for his kindness in considering the suggestions I made last year and also to express my appreciation that he has been able to accept them. Perhaps I might also say how glad I am to hear from him that progress in recruiting in the Royal Air Force is so satisfactory. It is true that it is a very different problem from that in the Army. It is not so much a question of numbers, but, in the long run, of its share of the scarce skills for which it will have to rely more on its own people than on people from civilian life. I know that I am pushing at an open door, but I think that, in general, is the policy.
The real excuse for my detaining the House now is that during the course of last year I had considerable correspondence with officers in the Royal Air Force interested in recruiting. This struck me very forcibly because there was such

sympathy and understanding and a desire to acquaint themselves with the difficulties. Some even came to see me at the House—not, of course, from any political point of view—to discuss this problem. I was very much impressed by their approach and the feeling that officers of some seniority were worried about some of the subjects which worry the right hon. Gentleman and, if I may say so in all modesty, myself. In this life the first stage in finding a solution is to find out what is wrong. There was not any hidebound, old-fashioned, Colonel Blimpish approach, but a really sympathetic understanding.
I was so impressed that I thought I would seek this opportunity of mentioning it because I feel that the future of defence in this country lies much more with the Royal Air Force and newer traditions enshrined in it than with the older Services. I say that in no carping spirit, because members of my family before me and the generation to come along have been and are soldiers. I honestly believe from what study I can make of this problem that this country has to look increasingly to the Royal Air Force and the intelligent and sympathetic approach to a young man's problem is so heartening that I feel I should pay this tribute.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: Since this is an occasion when it is in order to discuss matters such as recruiting, administration and equipment, I should like to take the opportunity for a moment to follow to some extent the comments of the right hon. Gentleman on these matters and to deal with a particular aspect, that is, the conditions of airwomen, especially overseas.
I had a very unfortunate constituency example of what can happen when the administration is not quite so good as the right hon. Gentleman in his concluding sentences claimed it to be. One of my constituents joined the Women's Royal Air Force at the age of 17 and, while stationed in Germany, was eventually given permission to live out of camp in civil accommodation with an American airman on the ground that she was going to marry him. The American airman concerned undertook a Regular engagement so that he might stay in Germany and, if was understood, marry her. The rest of the story is not quite so happy.
It is that on pressure from the United States authorities the young airman did not marry the girl because it had been alleged that she had had Communist associations, which, I think, is a quite fantastic and baseless story.
Now the American airman pays a contribution to the upkeep of his child to the girl, who was discharged from the Royal Air Force when she was pregnant, at the age of 20. That must be regarded as a most unfortunate occurrence because someone took the very heavy responsibility of allowing the girl to live out of camp. Someone was convinced that everything was in order and that the marriage was going to take place. I should have thought it was a little doubtful, a bit "cagey", that officers should empower other ranks to live out of camp with some other person of the opposite sex in civilian accommodation merely because they felt satisfied that eventually they were to be married.
I know that the right hon. Member has immense faith in the working of the administration, because a letter which I received from him a couple of days ago offered quite the flimsiest explanation I have ever received from a Minister of the Crown in reply to a constituency case. He brushed the matter aside and said, "We do not do these things". I asked him whether he had any means of finding out what investigations had been made by the American authorities and he replied:
I do not see that it would be appropriate for me to comment on the policy of the United States authorities.
I did not ask him to comment upon it; I asked for his help, and it is administrative help which has been lacking in this case.
The standing of the R.A.F. loses on both grounds, in the first place because of the obvious weakness in allowing this situation to develop and in the second place because it will now get around among United States airmen that it is no good getting themselves engaged to girls in the W.R.A.F. because that Service is obviously riddled with Communists, unknown to the authorities, who investigate neither their political background nor their domestic difficulties.
I do not want to amplify the example, but I should like a little more detail in reply from the Minister in dealing with my original representation. If he is not

willing to investigate cases more thoroughly than he investigated this case, then I think it is clearly in order to raise the matter now, because it raises the question of the Minister's suitability to be answerable to Parliament for the working of this Act.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have attended many Air Force debates in my time, but I can remember no debate in which so little interest was taken in the R.A.F. by hon. Members opposite. We have almost reached the stage when we might say:
The boy stood on the burning deck Whence all but he had fled;
It does not appear that there is much interest shown by Government supporters in discussing the R.A.F. when the only occupants of the Government benches are the Secretary of State, his Parliamentary Private Secretary and a Government Whip. Presumably both the Parliamentary Private Secretary and the Government Whip would not have been there had they not been compelled to be there. This shows a lamentable lack of interest in the R.A.F. I am glad that we have not reached a stage at which only the Minister and I are exchanging views in a dialogue between us.
I can understand the Minister being pleased that he is attracting a large number of recruits to the R.A.F. That is his job. He wants the biggest Air Force that he can get and he wants to see discipline and the organisation at the best possible level. We know that he has always had the interest of the R.A.F. at heart, and in that respect he is entitled to take pride in what he has accomplished, but I feel no satisfaction in the fact that a large number of young men and women are joining the R.A.F. I think that too many recruits are joining it.
Who are these young men who are being recruited into the R.A.F. as a result of what must be an enormous sum of public money spent in advertising in the Press of this country? Nearly every day I pass down the Strand, where I see an enormous organisation, which must cost a considerable amount of public money, which exists to enlist young men and women into the Air Force.
I am not surprised that the Minister has his recruits, but I wonder what is the outlook of the young, ambitious recruit


to the R.A.F. who joins for nine years. Surely anybody who thinks in terms of modern aircraft knows that every day a silent revolution is taking place in the manufacture of aircraft. It is possible hat these young men will be trained to fly aircraft this year which will be obsolete next year. What kind of planes will these nine-year recruits be called upon to fly in nine years' time? I do not know.
I do not understand what purpose there can be in attracting recruits, many of whom are skilled engineers, from work in civil industries which is essential for their future development and for the economic development of the country. What is the use of attracting these young men into the R.A.F. from useful industry when, as I think, the R.A.F. is a dead end?
I do not expect the Minister to agree with me, because this is repugnant to everything for which he stands, but I remember the debate on the Air Estimates when the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) said bluntly that he would not allow his son to enlist in the R.A.F. because the R.A.F. is finished, or words to that effect. At; he present rate of scientific development, I should say—speaking purely as a lay-man and without any technical knowledge—that in nine years' time the Vulcans, the other V-bombers and the fighters will be obsolete. They will be as obsolete as the Canberras and as a good many of the aircraft which paraded at Farnborough, or in the ceremonies in connection with the Battle of Britain.
We are spending a great deal of money on enticing people into the Air Force when the Air Force has ceased to have much relevance to modern defence. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) referred to the Air Force as if it were defending this country, but we are in the age of guided missiles—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. Member is going far beyond the terms of the Motion.

Mr. Hughes: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-speaker. I was trying to obtain from the Minister his view on what is the future of the men who have been enlisted into the Air Force on a nine-year engagement. I tried to look a little further ahead.
I believe that there is no future for the young people who are being recruited into the Air Force on nine-year engagements, that a good deal of public money is being wasted and that in nine years' time the whole paraphernalia of the R.A.F. will be as obsolete as are those aircraft which we used ten years ago.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) rather than that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) about the importance of the R.A.F. now and in the future.
I believe it is time that the Air Force debate did not tag along behind the Army debate. Much of what is said is common ground, and there is no reason why the Government should not put the Air Force Act down for debate first next year, with the Army Act debate to follow. The present procedure is merely a hangover from the time when the Air Force was a minute Service of comparative unimportance. I hope that some action will be taken to put this right in future. Perhaps it could be arranged alternatively, with the Army first one year and the Air Force first the next year.
If I mention Grigg, it will be merely a slip of the tongue, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I am following, as far as I can, the actual Air Force Act. At the beginning, we have the reference to recruiting, the terms and conditions of enlistment and the terms and conditions of service. We were all interested in the figures that the Secretary of State gave, and I have two questions I wish to put on them. Unfortunately, I have mislaid the figures for the year and I have not them here; I have only the figures for September, for the three-year engagement. I notice, in the figures I have, that there has been a large increase in recruitment under the three-year engagement. If I do not say it, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley will, no doubt, next year or at another time say it. Are we relying too much on the three-year man?
My second question relates to apprentices. Of course, at first sight, it is good that there should be so many apprentices, but is the Secretary of State watching carefully the problem that, with a smaller, Regular force, prospects of promotion


may be less? All of us know men, able men, who became group captains in the Air Force but who had spent nine years as corporals. They had come in as apprentices and, because there was not adequate promotion, it took a large expansion in the Service to bring them to the rank to which they were fully entitled and which they were able to hold as group captains.
I am horrified to hear the story put before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) about what happened overseas to a young woman in the W.R.A.F. How on earth did it happen that she was given permission to live out in these circumstances? I am not at this stage so much concerned about whether the Secretary of State should comment on the views of the United States authorities on her political reliability. I am directing my remarks to the Service's treatment of a young girl, apparently under twenty at the time, who was allowed in those circumstances overseas to live out.
The Women's Royal Air Force can provide people suitable for certain trades such as signals operating, and I understand that that is one of the trades in which the Secretary of State and the Air Council foresee shortages, or at any rate, more difficulty in meeting requirements. Has the trade structure really been studied, and have the regulations on such things as shift working been modified so as to give the greatest possible opportunity to members of the W.R.A.F. to take on this type of work?

Mr. Ward: To which particular trade is the hon. Gentleman referring?

Mr. de Freitas: I was thinking of any work in signals or communications, which is not highly skilled, which can be done by a girl.
It seems a staggering thing that the size of the Women's Royal Air Force shrank last year, and I should like to know what the prospects are now. It is a sad fact, too, which we cannot ignore, that much of this unfortunate reduction may have been the result of the offhand way in which, two years ago, the Minister of Defence dismissed the Women's Services, not even referring to them at all in his White Paper of 1957.
I cannot go far into this subject, but it is obviously right that, if we are to tackle women's recruiting, we must look at it in a way which is not traditional in the Air Force. For instance, we cannot expect uniforms to remain the same for more than a year or two. Women's fashions change, and the women's dress has to change somewhat in accordance with it. This does not apply to the men's Service. There must be an entirely different conception in stock-holding and contracts for women's clothing. Also, are we right in having this five-day probation period for women?
Food and accommodation must affect recruiting. As regards food, is it not stupid to refer to the odd stations where there may be ten items on the menu for lunch and give them a great deal of ballyhoo and publicity? What we must do is provide a good basic standard. As regards accommodation, we can say that some of it is very good. I have seen it at stations like Waddington. We must bring the old accommodation up to the standard of the new.
Is the type of discipline suitable to a modern technical Service. On the whole, the evidence is that Royal Air Force discipline, and the way it is carried out, is about right; but all the Acts of Parliament in the world and all the debates which we may have in Parliament are far less important to discipline than the standard of the average Service policeman. We know that, in civil life, as the general standard of education has risen, so has the standard of education and intelligence of the average policeman; he is a better type of person. The "flat foot" has largely gone in modern police forces. Has the same thing happened in the Service? It is the standard of education and intelligence of the Service policeman which is really behind the discipline which we have to consider. I am not referring to officers, because they do not come in at this point; I am talking about the man on the job.
There are one or two other points which I could not help noticing as I went through the Air Force Act, thinking of what had happened during the time it has been in force. For instance, there are the provisions about aliens. I have not given the right hon. Gentleman notice of this question. I did not realise what a


short debate this would be, so that there may be certain questions he will not be able to answer off-hand. How many aliens are there? We had many in the Royal Air Force; for instance, there was a number of Poles. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) often discusses the possibility of taking in aliens from, let us say, a country like Italy, or other citizens of our N.A.T.O. ally countries for certain technical trades. I wondered what the policy is for the Royal Air Force.
Section 44 and those Sections which go with it relate to public money and public property, and I have a question there. Has the Air Council delegated enough power under the Act? Is there enough opportunity for delegation of power to non-commissioned officers in the handling of money? Large civilian companies and organisations find no difficulty whatever in allowing junior clerks to handle very large sums in pay packets. Is it not a problem that, as a result of the Air Force Act and various Regulations, only officers in the Air Force may handle money? One of the consequences of senior N.C.Os. not being able to do it is that one cannot abolish the pay parades, which everyone agrees should go. They are completely out of place, especially in a Service like the Royal Air Force. Is there not a point in the Act which prevents a really modern system of pay packets, such as there is in civilian life? Is this not one of the reasons for quietly dropping some of the very important recommendations of the Benson experiment?
Section 51 deals with low flying. Just how far is this a problem today, with modern high speed aircraft? There must be little opportunity or temptation for a pilot deliberately to "beat up" a town or village. I mention this particularly because over the last few years, in the two towns I know best, namely, Cambridge and Lincoln, where there are many aircraft about, there have been one or two occasions when it seemed to me that there was a prima facie cause for complaint, and I have complained to the Air Ministry about what seemed to me low flying. In each case, it turned out that there was a good reason, such as weather conditions, for the particular occurrence. What is the position today about low flying? Is it a problem today?
If we turn to Section 60—the Section under miscellaneous offences which deals with injurious disclosures—we come up against the problem of certain aspects of public relations. In areas where there are many Royal Air Force stations, there are always complaints by the local Press that they are not given enough information by the local R.A.F. commanders. It arises particularly in a county such as Lincolnshire. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that this Section is not too tight, preventing the local commander from giving information? Is it not a fact that the words used here—" without authority "—are too tightly construed?
We have to strike a balance between good public relations and taking the local people into our confidence, and the risk of real security. I am anxious to know if this Section is not too tight, and whether it does not have a bad effect on the whole. The Royal Air Force must get public support, as any Service must, and it is increasingly important as it becomes a regular service and will not have civilians in it in a few years. I hope the Secretary of State will look into this point.
Further on, in Section 84, there is a reference to courts-martial, and here I wonder if the Secretary of State has had a chance to clear up the points about courts-martial and the percentages, because I fear that the Army may be done a grave injustice if the percentage is as high as just under 2 per cent. whereas the R.A.F. figure is only 3·5 per 1,000. I hope that in the time that has elapsed since the little discussion earlier on the right hon. Gentleman has been able to clear up that point.
The last point I want to raise on the Act concerns Section 178, which deals with powers of command. I wonder if on this power of command and of attachment of naval or military forces, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the provisions are adequate today to cover the extensive co-operation with the other Services, and also how it will fit in with the Commonwealth services, especially when Canada has one Service instead of three.
The basis of our narrow debate today is discipline. During the last few years, thanks to the Secretary of State, together with other Members of Parliament, I have been able to visit different types of


Royal Air Force units. It would be presumptuous for me to generalise from a few visits to different types of stations on the subject of discipline. But I can say that I saw nothing but evidence of good discipline. I support this Motion.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Ward: If I may try to deal with some of the points which have been raised in the course of this short debate, I will do so to the best of my ability. I will answer by letter any to which I have not been able to reply in the time available.
The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), in a short speech in which he was kind enough to pay tribute to the quality of officers in the R.A.F. and their approach to their service, said he was anxious lest the R.A.F. would not get its share of the scarce skills available in the country. Our problem is not really in the skilled trades. I believe that we shall get all the people we want in the highly skilled trades. Our problem lies in the semi-skilled and unskilled trades, which, of course, are not nearly so interesting. It is this about which we are anxious, and not about the skilled trades.
The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) raised the problem of his W.R.A.F. constituent, about which we have already had correspondence. I told him in my letter, and I can only repeat now, that it is made quite clear that a girl of under 21 has to get her parents' consent to live out. Although I should like to refresh my memory, since it is some days since I read the case carefully, to the best of my recollection I think I can say that, in fact, the parents' consent was obtained in this case.

Mr. Parkin: Surely the parents' consent could only in these circumstances have been obtained on the recommendation of the R.A.F. Surely the R.A.F. would have investigated the circumstances and indicated them, or is the Minister seriously saying that if a parent writes in and says, "I should like my daughter to sleep with an American airman," he will permit it? It is nonsense. The R.A.F. must accept the responsibility for investigating the circumstances in the first case, and conveying to the parents of the girl what the circumstances were.

Mr. Ward: I do not accept without further evidence that either the parents

or the R.A.F. knew that she was, in fact, living with this airman. That is quite a different matter. The matter which the hon. Gentleman raised was purely a regulational one—whether, in fact, the girl was allowed to live out. Under the age of 21, girls are allowed to live out with their parents' consent. Whether somebody goes to live with the girl or not is quite a separate point altogether. The hon. Gentleman really cannot lay at my door any blame for the United States airman changing his mind about marrying the girl. Good heavens, it is not the first time it has happened, and if, every time—

Mr. Parkin: That is a mean and unworthy statement. There is no justification for it.

Mr. Ward: —a United States airman changes his mind—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We are getting very far away from the Motion.

Mr. Ward: I will leave that point, anyway.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) talked about the number of recruits going into the R.A.F. for nine years and wondered what they were going to do. He said that, in his opinion, and I quote, "there was a silent revolution in the aircraft industry." He said, and I quote again, "Their profession is a dead end." My third quotation, of course, throws a great deal of light on the whole thing, for the hon. Member said, "I speak only as a layman, without any technical knowledge." If I may say so without impertinence, the hon. Gentleman made it quite clear that it is not only technical knowledge that he lacks in this matter.
I do not want to stray out of order by going into the question of the types of aircraft available to these men, because I do not think that it has very much to do with the Act. As I have been challenged, however, I feel that I am entitled to say that the hon. Gentleman really must not spread this idea that, in nine years from now, there will be no aeroplanes in the Royal Air Force. I have never heard such nonsense. There will be the new P.1 Lightning fighter, and the V-bombers will still be with us. Apart from Bomber and Fighter Commands, what about overseas commands?


What about the Second Tactical Air Force? What about the Far East Air Force, or the Middle East Air Force, or Transport Command and Coastal Command? Are they all to die out? I have never heard such nonsense. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think more carefully before he makes such statements.
The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) asked a large number of questions about the Air Force Act, one g which was about the large increase in three-year engagements. He was worried lest we should be relying too much upon it. We have been taking a large number of three-year men in, of course. They were very useful to us in the days when we were glad to have anyone we could, and not only for that reason. They have been useful to us in that a large number of them have become four, five and even eight-year men before they are through Therefore, I do not at all regret our policy of the three-year engagement.
On the other hand, I am the first to agree with the hon. Member that the smaller we can make it in numbers the better, because we want to have long-term people. Therefore, we shall be reviewing the three-year intakes very carefully at the end of this year. But I want to emphasise that even though our recruiting figures look very encouraging and very good at the moment, we cannot afford to be over-complacent. There have been far too many disappointments about recruiting in the past to lightly throw away three-year engagements before being absolutely certain that we are home and dry.
The hon. Member spoke about the prospects of promotion for younger men. That has been very much in our minds. On that depends getting the shape of the Service right. As he knows, we have tried to do this by making redundant quite a large number of senior N.C.O.s and paying them the compensation due to them under a recent White Paper. In this way, as the number of men in the Air Force came down we had to make senior N.C.O.s redundant to provide promotion prospects for the younger men, and we shall do our best to keep the shape of the Service right.
The size of the W.R.A.F. was also worrying the hon. Member. We were

anxious ourselves about it last year. It did decrease. We should like many more girls to come into the Air Force. We have suggested several improvements in their pay and conditions of service upon which I cannot embark in detail now without straying out of order, because most of them come under the Grigg Report. But on one matter which the hon. Member mentioned, that is changing the fashion of the uniform, we have decided to introduce a blouse instead of the collar and tie which the girls do not like. That is one example of the things we propose to do to help.
The hon. Member also spoke about food. I felt that he was a little unfair in suggesting that there was what he called "ballyhoo" about the food at specially selected stations. My best answer is to issue him a cordial, friendly invitation to lunch with me at any Air Force station of his own choice, with the minimum of notice. I will give him lunch with the greatest of pleasure if it will help to dispel the idea that the food is good only at certain stations and is bad at others. I assure him that there is a uniformly high standard throughout the Service.
With the hon. Member's permission, I will not try now to answer the points about aliens, and the delegation of money to N.C.O.s, pay parades, and so on, which he raised. We are doing a great deal about the last two, particularly the pay parades, and we have altered our procedures in recent years.
There is one point which I should like to mention about Section 60, and complaints from the local Press. That also has been very much in our minds. Since the war we have been able to make very considerable relaxations in our security arrangements. Immediately after the war there were some very stringent rules about not being able to give the station commander's name and the type of aircraft on the station in the same newspaper. All that has now gone and I think that on the whole the local Press can get what it wants if it is understanding and appreciates that the station commander is in a difficult position when talking to the Press. He is a serving officer and is very conscious of his security responsibilities. My experience is that, on the whole, the local Press nowadays is able to get a very good selection of what it calls


human stories, the "local boy makes good" type of story, and any kind of angle it wants, except the things that affect security.
I assure the hon. Member that I will look more carefully into the comparative figures for courts-martial which he mentioned. I have been able to discover that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War spoke of something under 2 per cent. My figure, of course, was 3·5 per 1,000. I leave the hon. Member to work out that sum.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Draft Air Force Act, 1955 (Continuation) Order, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Between the hours of 10 and 10.30 last night at a time when, we are now told, the effort of the late Mr. Fawkes to blow up the House of Commons was being celebrated with a fervour and enthusiasm not previously exemplified in the last 350 years, I ventured to raise a point of order in connection with this Bill. I ventured to say that it could not be discussed on Second Reading, in accordance with the rules of the House, after 10 o'clock unless a Motion specifically providing for that eventuality had previously been moved.
At that moment we had been discussing a matter apparently regarded as of great importance for five and a half hours—whether Tory motors work—and the captains and the kings were departing from the Chamber. I had some difficulty in finding out what had been said and what observations had been made until I read my HANSARD this morning when, not for the first time. I was not surprised to find that I was absolutely right and that that proposition had apparently been accepted, though not wholly without some reluctance, by both sides of the House.
But it was said, and it was news to me, that there had been agreement between the parties that we would accept Second Reading formally and discuss these matters in Committee. I would be the last person to try to invalidate such an undertaking, which is of the essence of the working of the House. Sometimes they are wise, sometimes not so wise, but they are agreements that are made. Had I known I would not have done so. I think everyone who knows me will realise that I am the last person to say that mother is not always right, but when one has fifteen mothers it is sometimes not possible at short notice to consult each and every one of them to find out what arrangements have been made.
So I am now left in the difficulty, which weighs heavily upon my shoulders, that if I pursue the discussion I break the undertaking, and if I do not pursue it I appear to have interfered with the rules of order of the House quite unnecessarily and perhaps without due thought. I must therefore try, if one may coin a phrase, to sail between the Scylla of verbosity and the Charybdis of propriety in trying to put my point to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with the brevity which would accord with the spirit of the undertaking and with the humility which would justify my intervention last night. This, of course, is clearly a difficult proposition, and I speak, therefore, with great humility about it.
The Expiring Laws Continuance Bill has been passed year after year for a great many years. I will make one concession at once. I have not the slightest doubt that next year my right hon. Friends above the Gangway, then the Government of this country, thank God, will be bringing forward much the same proposition as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is putting forward now, and, I think, putting it forward perhaps more fully and more ably, but, nevertheless, putting forward much the same proposition.
On Second Reading there are two questions which arise. The first has been laid down by the Chair constantly, namely, that on Second Reading we can raise and discuss the question whether such a Bill is desirable and whether such a method is desirable. The reason why my right hon. Friend the Member for Sraethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and I raised this point last night was that the


procedure of the House is involved, that at the moment a Select Committee on Procedure is sitting—of which I have the privilege to be a member—and which therefore cannot be discussed. However it would hardly be either revealing a secret or hazarding a guess if one said that some of the questions incident to the suspension of the rule may or must inevitably be under consideration by that Committee.
I do say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick, who was I think responsible for the arrangements and in view of whose constant courtesy to me personally I would be the last person to wish to go behind any bargain he had made had I known about it, and having. too, a lively sense of possible favours to come, that I think the point overlooked last night was that previously, even when it has been said that we would take the Second Reading formally, there has always been a Motion for suspension moved. Why it was not done yesterday, I do not know, but it was not done yesterday and that was the reason why I intervened.
It has been said—I have said it too—that one can discuss on Second Reading the question whether this kind of Bill is desirable. One of the matters that affected my mind very much was that we were to consider the question of aliens. Under Mr. Speaker's Ruling, which for the moment I say with respect that I accept and will follow, and which in a few moments I propose respectfully to challenge for future consideration, we cannot discuss the question of aliens but must wait for an Amendment to the Schedule. As I understand it, the proposition of the two parties was that ample time would be given for discussion of these matters, and that being so, it is not my desire at the moment to go behind that agreement.
Having made that clear, there are some unhappy precedents about the Closure being moved on this Bill in a very short time. I say this very humbly and very respectfully to the Chair, only adding that all of us are human—at least all of us are human except the Chair and I would not like to have it thought that I was calling the Chair inhuman—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. I do not think we can discuss that matter on the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Hale: I entirely agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I was not thinking of doing so. All I was saying was that in the early hours of the morning the urge for brevity becomes more accentuated, in some people at any rate. As you say, I cannot discuss this. I will merely state the fact that there was an extraordinary speech from the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) on the question of aliens, which really suggested—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am afraid we cannot discuss the question of aliens on the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Hale: I thought it was the sort of thing one cannot discuss at any time, and I am not proposing to do so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am merely saying seriously that on the Second Reading it was ruled by Mr. Speaker that we can discuss the question whether such a Bill should be produced in this form and I was only making one observation in relation to whether the Bill should be discussed in this form. But when we have a suggestion from a supporter of the Government that a Bill should be introduced this Session which would enable the Government to deport Jesus Christ and eleven of the twelve Apostles, Judas Iscariot and the thirty pieces of silver being exempt—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is getting out of order. We cannot discuss the merits of any Measure which it is proposed to continue.

Mr. Hale: I am so anxious tonight to be brief, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I will not even challenge the Ruling. I hope I may say, in parenthesis, that it appears to me that if we are arguing about whether a Bill should be taken in a certain form, we can briefly indicate the difficulties inherent in taking it in that form. After all, we are in a country in which Notting Hill exists—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot do it with regard to the merits of the statutes included in the Bill.

Mr. Hale: Then may I come to the point of Order which I wanted to raise? Mr. Speaker ruled in the debate of 1953–54 that on Second Reading it had been ruled


previously that we could not discuss any of the questions arising from the Acts which it was sought to renew. I am only proposing to suggest, as I ventured to do in a brief interruption last night, that Mr. Speaker might be good enough, as he always does on reasonable representation being made, to reconsider the Ruling that was then given. I ask that because a careful review of all the authorities in HANSARD, and of all the authorities referred to by Erskine May, appears to suggest that the Ruling which he applies to Second Reading was made on each occasion on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. With respect, I think it will appear to most of us that the Ruling about the Second Reading is virtually so wide that this appears to be a difficulty Ruling and one which I ask Mr. Speaker at his leisure to consider, not tonight, because no doubt this matter will come up on a subsequent occasion.
I conclude by saying that the one thing we can discuss is whether this is an appropriate method of renewing or of ceasing to renew vital Acts of Parliament affecting the community. You have said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—and I do not seek to challenge it now—that I cannot discuss the question of aliens except to quote it as a solitary example of the kind of thing which might enable us to argue that this is the wrong method.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I do not want to be obstructive to the hon. Gentleman, but he cannot quote it even as a solitary example.

Mr. Hale: Then I venture respectfully to seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as to how on the Second Reading of this Bill, which is down for discussion, one can discuss whether the Second Reading should be passed if one is prevented from saying what the Second Reading involves. How can I respectfully submit to the House that, in my view, the Second Reading of this Bill should not be carried tonight if I am inhibited completely from mentioning to those hon. Members of the House who have come in, perhaps without knowing what is the Order of the Day, what are the matters which are under discussion on the question of passing the Second Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulties, but it is a

well established Ruling of many Speakers, and also contained in Erskine May, that we cannot on the Second Reading of this Bill discuss the merits of any Measure which it is proposed to continue.

Mr. Hale: I respectfully agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have not challenged that, but surely one can say that there are Measures which are being renewed as annual Measures without discussion after 10 o'clock at night, without being given the time which the question of whether Tory motors work or not is allocated in the time-table. Here, after all, it is a question of one issue which challenges the whole of our moral system, the whole of our relations with our colonial peoples, the whole of our attitude to the world, the whole conception of the brotherhood of man and, indeed, some unhappy parts of our history in the 1930s which I think men on both sides of the House now regret.
I do not wish tonight to enter the field of controversy. I have risen only to say that I regret raising this matter in view of the undertakings which were made—had I known about them I would not have raised it—but, having raised it, it seemed to me that I should fail in my duty if I did not try respectfully and briefly to indicate the sort of matters that we wish to discuss freely, and, I hope, without any Closure when they are in order, on Second Reading next year when Mr. Speaker has had an opportunity to consider the Ruling that he gave which I have ventured respectfully to doubt.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I associate myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has said. I do not think it is necessary for him to apologise in any way for having detained the House by a speech on the Second Reading of this Bill at this hour. After all, it is only twenty minutes past eight o'clock and the House has suspended the Standing Order, so that if necessary the discussion on Second Reading could continue after ten o'clock.
Like my hon. Friend, I was unaware of any agreement that had been made between the two Front Benches about about yesterday's business. I also


noticed that, contrary to the custom in previous years, there was no Motion on the Order Paper yesterday suggesting that the rule should be suspended. I do not yet know what the agreement between the two Front Benches was, but I understand that it was an agreement that there should be no prolonged discussion on the Second Reading and that the Second Reading should pass without a Division, which has not always been the case.
I listened attentively to my hon. Friend. As I understood his speech, he was trying to do two things. He was trying, legitimately, to assert the rights of hon. Members to discuss the Bill on Second Reading if they wished to and to elucidate from Mr. Speaker some clarification of what is said in Erskine May and what Mr. Speaker said in the debate on Second Reading in 1952. It is important for the benefit of future Parliaments that we should be clear about the rights of hon. Members in this respect. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you have indicated that there is a. limitation on what can be said in the Second Reading debate on the Bill. You have indicated that one cannot discuss the merits of any of the matters in the Schedule; but that is a very different matter from saying that we cannot have any discussion at all on Second Reading. There are numerous precedents that the Second Reading—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There may be some misunderstanding. No one has suggested that there can be no discussion at all on the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Fletcher: I am very much obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think that by that Ruling you have really gone a long way to remove what I think my hon. Friend thought and what I certainly thought, that there was some very wide restriction on what could be discussed on the Second Reading of the Bill. I gather that it is now recognised that the Second Reading admits of discussion provided that one does not enter into a discussion of the merits of the matters referred to in the Schedule. I am content, naturally, and would wish at all times, to observe your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
May we in the light of those observations just consider what it is that the House is being asked to do tonight? We are being asked to extend for a period of one year a miscellaneous set of provisions

contained in a number of Acts passed between 1919 and 1953 which have no causal connection or relationship between them whatever.
It may well be a legitimate matter for consideration whether, if any of these Acts are to he extended, they should be extended for as long as twelve months. It would obviously be possible during the Committee stage when we reach the Schedule to table Amendments suggesting that if any of the Acts remain in the Schedule they should be renewed for only six months. There would be a very good reason for considering such a limitation on this occasion, for we are in the dying days of a decadent Government and, long before the period of twelve months had elapsed, there will have been a General Election and there will be a new Government in power.
It is a matter of great concern to the Opposition that the Government are using the few precious months left to them in office to drive through the House a number of Bills suited to their own convenience, such as the monstrous Bill which the Government carried on Second Reading last night and the Bill which we shall be discussing on Wednesday next to take away various controls which the Government have enjoyed for a long period. I mention those only as instances of the line of conduct which is actuating this mischievous Government in putting this kind of legislation before the House. When we have a Labour Government in power I do not think for a moment that we shall want these provisions to last as long as a year. We shall certainly want to do something about the aliens question.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon. Members cannot discuss Acts which are to be continued.

Mr. Fletcher: I have no intention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, of discussing the merits of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment', Act. Nor do I intend to discuss the merits of the Accommodation Agencies Act and Part II of the Licensing Act. However, those Measures have this in common, that the Government are proposing to continue them for a year. I was trying to suggest that, in so far as any of them are worthy of renewal at all, a year is far too long. I believe that long before the year has expired we


shall want to make changes in the provisions of the Licensing Act and, certainly, the provisions of the law relating to aliens.
It does not follow that the period of a year will be equally applicable for the renewal of all these Measures, but one can say that this method of legislating is most unsatisfactory. After all, in the White Paper dealing with emergency legislation and published the other day the Government took some measure of pride—I think unjustified pride—in an attempt which they alleged they were making to tidy up emergency legislation. That is a course which has long been overdue. We have been urging them to do that for a long time.
The Bill is part of emergency legislation and we are dealing with an expiring Government. Why they should want, as an expiring Government, to continue a miscellaneous set of provisions for a period which will extend beyond their own life as a Government is something which has yet to be justified. One of the emergencies with which the Bill deals was started in 1919. It is most unsatisfactory that any Bill, dealing with aliens or any other subject, introduced as a temporary Measure and in a time of emergency, pushed through at a time when there was no proper opportunity for Parliamentary debate and discussion and intended to last for only a limited time, should be renewed year after year without adequate discussion. Either temporary and emergency legislation should come to an end when it expires, or, if intended to be permanent, it should be put on a permanent basis.
There are two objections to the Bill. The first is that its mechanics are unsatisfactory. It is impossible to have the full discussion on these matters which the House and the country would be entitled to have if the subject of aliens, or any other subject, such as population statistics, came up for general discussion. One of our difficulties is that when we come to the Schedule we can consider only whether an item should be included or not. That limits the opportunity of debate. It makes it impossible for us to do what many of my hon. Friends would wish to do, to examine each of these subjects separately and to have a full discussion about them.
One example is the Accommodation Agencies Act, 1953. I take that merely

as an example, for I do not want it to be thought that every time I mention one of these Acts I mention aliens. The subject of aliens happens to be at the top of the list and happens to be a subject about which there is much concern at the moment in many parts of the country. The same observations are true of other items in the Bill.
I very much hope that, as a result of this point having been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, the Government will appreciate the concern which is felt about their gross neglect in having allowed this custom to persist year after year since 1951 without any attempt having been made, until it is too late for them to do it, to put this kind of legislation on a far more satisfactory basis.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

Committee upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine; and of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, and Part II of the Licensing Act, 1953, until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty, being expenses which under any Act are to be provided out of such moneys.—[Mr. Simon.]

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I should like to ask why, on this occasion, the Minister estimates in his Financial Memorandum that:
The continuance of the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, will involve the continuance of additional expenditure of the order of £8,000 a year upon the salaries of the staff engaged in providing national statistics of fertility.


Are we to understand that this is a static figure? Are we to understand that the Financial Secretary is quite satisfied that this very important operation of providing the nation with full fertility statistics under the Act of 1938 will not involve some increased charge on the Exchequer'? My recollection is that this figure of £8,000 appeared last year, and in previous years.
It is a long time since we have had any explanation from the Government as to how this money is spent. What results are produced by this research into fertility? We attach great importance to statistics of that kind. Parliament takes these Bills and Financial Memoranda somewhat too casually. We do not inquire sufficiently into the question whether the Government are asking for sufficient money for such objects covered by the Bill as we regard as worthy objects. I am all in favour of the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938.
We are entitled to know whether the Financial Secretary is satisfied that the staff engaged on the work requiring to be done is sufficient, and whether the salaries are adequate, and that it is reasonable that the figure should continue at the same rate as it has done ever since 1938. Has not the time come when the numbers engaged on this work should be augmented? Do their salaries ever rise? Before we agree to the Motion, we should have an explanation why the figure is so constant. I would also ask whether the Financial Secretary ought not to ask for it to be increased.

8.38 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): I was provided with this figure as the best estimate that could be made of the additional expenditure called for by the Act in question. The staff who provide the further statistics is already engaged in the provision of statistics, and this is only additional expenditure required and called for by the Act. It is the best estimate that can

be given. But the figures are audited post hoc by the Comptroller and Auditor General in the ordinary course of events, and I do not doubt that the Public Accounts Committee would already have remarked upon any discrepancy if such had appeared. This is an annual Bill.

Mr. Hale: The Memorandum states that there will be an additional expenditure of the order of £8,000 a year in respect of the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, and that further expenditure will be involved in respect of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, and so on. Many other Acts do not appear to involve any expenditure. Clearly the administration of the aliens law must involve expenditure. I take it that this is incorporated under the whole Home Office figures and would be a matter for debate on the Home Office Vote.
One of the difficulties about it is that if, for example, the Government implemented the proposal of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) and deported all the Northern Irishmen as undesirables, two questions would arise—first, whether a new Estimate would have to be presented, and secondly, whether, in the circumstances, the Northern Ireland Government would be prepared to contribute. The Financial Secretary might say something on the question of aliens and tell us how much of the present proposals are incorporated in existing charges and, therefore, not carried to the Bill at all, and how far these proposals arise from the somewhat sensational propositions that we listened to during the debates on the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Simon: I am advised that the Bill does not involve any additional expenditure other than that which I have set out in the Financial Memorandum.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATION, ETC., BILLS

So much of the Lords Message [5th November] as relates to the appointment of a Committee on Consolidation Bills (including Bills for Consolidating Private Acts), Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Select Committee of Six Members appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider all Consolidation Bills (including Bills for Consolidating Private Acts), Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, in the present Session, together with the Memoranda laid and any representations made with respect thereto under the Act:

Mr. Philip Bell, Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. Janner, Sir Hugh Linstead, Mr. Oliver, and Mr. John Rankin.

Power to send for persons, papers, and records; and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

Orders of the Day — IRON ORE INDUSTRY, CLEVELAND

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I am glad to have the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power at this rather unexpected early hour, so that I may raise with him a matter of very great concern to my constituency. I shall be grateful if he can answer a number of questions which I hope to put to him.
I am referring to a matter which is, as I say, of great concern to my constituents and my constituency—the future

of iron ore mining in Cleveland. As I am sure the hon. Member will know, Cleveland is one of the historic iron ore districts of the United Kingdom. It was because of the discovery of iron ore in the Cleveland hills, in the nineteenth century, that the great steel industry of Middlesbrough and later, of Tees-side generally came to be founded.
There was a time when Cleveland was one of the major ironstone fields of the country. I believe that up to 1920 it was the biggest single source of ore for the British steel industry. Of course, it had the advantage also of close proximity to the excellent Durham coal. I think that we can all accept that that time has long since passed, and that for many years the steel works of Tees-side have been supplied in the main by sea with higher quality ore from foreign countries, particularly from Sweden and North Africa.
It is true that in the Cleveland hills much of the workable iron ore has been extracted and that what is left is difficult to obtain and is of relatively low iron content. However, that is typical of the whole of the British home-produced ores. Despite low iron content, about half the ore at present used by the British steel industry comes from home sources; so that if that is argued, as it often is argued, against the Cleveland ore it is an argument which may be used equally against British ore generally. Up to 1945, the iron and steel industry had gone through a bad time including the depression in the 1930s, though there was a very great deal of activity during the war years when it was necessary to use all the ore obtainable from home sources. In 1945, there were 2,000 to 3,000 men working in the Cleveland fields. The last decade has seen that number more than halved. I accept that there has been a process of running down, but it has been a relatively slow run-down.
A year ago I asked the predecessor of the hon. Gentleman what was likely to be the future of the Cleveland field. He could not give me an exact answer, but he said that the iron ore left at Cleveland was estimated to amount to about 30 million tons. He made the point, and we must accept it, that the future life of the field would depend on economic conditions. But at that time there was no indication of the decisions recently taken which may, unfortunately, drastically


shorten the useful life of the field and, therefore, seriously impair the employment prospects of my constituents who work there. These people are, in the main, not young men. They are older men who have given a lifetime of service to this valuable industry and, as may be expected, much as they may try to adapt themselves to new work, that will not always be easy.
The decision to which I refer was when it was announced unexpectedly to many, including myself, last August that the subsidy paid for the production of Cleveland ore would be withdrawn. I confess that I am ignorant of the exact arrangement of this subsidy and its extent. I have tried to find out, but it is not easy because, apparently, this matter is bound up with the general trade practices of the iron and steel industry. There may be excellent reasons for secrecy. I understand, however, that this subsidy has been paid out of national funds which have been available generally to the industry for a number of years, to assist and to make economic the production of the iron ore in the Cleveland field.
I find, also, that there is a bit of a mystery about who took the decision, whether it was taken by the Iron and Steel Federation or by the companies concerned. But it has certainly been taken, as I accept, in consultation with the Iron and Steel Board. Under the de-nationalisation legislation of 1953, the Iron and Steel Board has the overriding responsibility of looking on the affairs of the steel industry in the light of the national interest.
The effect of withdrawing the subsidy has already been to close down one of the mines concerned, the Loftus mine, which is worked in conjunction with the iron and steel works of the Skinningrove Iron and Steel Co. As soon as the subsidy was withdrawn the company found that it no longer paid them to work the Loftus mine. I do not complain of the decision of the local management as such. I discussed the issue with them, as well as with the trade union representatives of the workpeople.
The management received me with courtesy and we went over the whole business. I can quite see that, from its limited point of view, the company had no alternative but to close the mine.

which is to be sealed off for all time. Perhaps that is a pity. For all we know a situation may arise—if there were another war, for example, which does not bear thinking about— when it might be necessary to get at some of this Cleveland iron ore. Nevertheless, the decision has been taken and the mine has been closed down finally.
In addition to the closing down of one mine, the decision has brought about short-time working in a number of other mines belonging to Messrs. Dorman Long. Those mines have all gone over to short-time working. The result of all this has been to decrease the opportunities of employment thus leading to lower wages for my constituents who still work in these mines.
This brings me straight to three questions that I want to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. First, who took the initiative in this decision? That question is of interest to us all. Secondly, was there consultation with the Government and with the Ministry of Labour before the decision was taken, and were the social aspects looked at as well as the purely economic aspects? Did someone responsible consider these matters, or was an arbitrary decision taken by relatively unknown persons? Thirdly, why was the decision made now?
Some hon. Members, maybe the hon. Gentleman, regard subsidies in principle as devices of the Devil and do not like them. I do not take that doctrinaire attitude. I look at subsidies on their merits, and think that some subsidies are good. It all depends upon the particular subsidy. But in this case it was not a question of the subsidy being brought into existence for the first time, because it had been going on for many years. Surely this was the wrong time to withdraw it.
In Cleveland and on Tees-side generally unemployment is growing fast. Let me give figures to show the background against which this decision was taken. The total unemployment in the Tees-side Cleveland area, as given towards the end of October, had advanced from 2,666 a year ago to the present total of 7,294. That is a general increase in local unemployment of about three times. I worked out the percentage and I think it comes to a 170 per cent.


increase. The growth of general unemployment locally has been obvious for some months. I should have thought, therefore, this was the wrong time to remove the subsidy.
We have had a subsidy for production over so many years when there was high, booming employment. Surely it could continue, at any rate until the recession in the steel industry was overcome and things were moving forward once more. I should have thought if a subsidy which affects employment has to come off the time when it should come off is when there is relatively full employment, not at a time when employment is at its lowest. It seems that what has been done is to wait for a decline in local employment and then to aggravate it.
Those are three principal points with which I hope the hon. Gentleman will deal in his reply. There is a further point of a more general and national character. The Iron and Steel Board has stated in several of its Reports, including the special Report on Development, in 1957, that it desires the country to make the maximum use of home-produced ores, but, from reading its Reports, it is also evident that the steel producers, the steel companies, have been nothing like so enthusiastic on the issue. One cannot make out exactly the day-to-day relationship between the companies and the Iron and Steel Board, but one gets the impression that, while the Board would like to see more home-produced ore, the steel companies are a little reluctant to go ahead because, from a more narrow business point of view, that would not always pay.
How then, does the Cleveland decision to withdraw the subsidy, approved by the Iron and Steel Board, square with the general national interest in the matter? I think that one is entitled to an answer. Is this an issue on which the national interest has had to take second place to narrower considerations? I do not know, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could give us some information on that.
One would have thought that some kind of defence and strategic interest is also involved. As I have mentioned, the time may come when we shall need all the ore we can get. Is it wise to bring about a condition which may lead to the permanent closing of the Cleveland field? Finally, I must mention the matter of other employment in the area. I know

that that does not directly concern the hon. Gentleman, but is something for his right hon. Friends responsible for the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour. Nevertheless, I should like to put it on record, in passing.
In my constituency, there is excellent local co-operation between industry, trade union representatives, local authorities and local community organisations, together with the development boards. I am sure that from the purely local point of view everyone will co-operate to the maximum to create other sources of employment, but in spite of anything that can or will be done to bring light industry to my constituency, it remains a serious mattes for such small communities as Cleveland when an old-established iron ore industry disappears.
The provision of other sources of employment becomes urgent. It is sometimes said that the great new chemical works of I.C.I., at Wilton, will provide all necessary employment in the Tees side area when the ironstone mining finally goes, but that great works covers a very wide area and employment there involves much travelling to many of my constituents. It is not always easy for them to manage this travelling when wage packets are much smaller, as they are at present. Moreover, the chemical industry is itself a basic industry, and if there is a general recession in trade it will feel the draught as the steel industry will.
I appreciate that questions of other employment are not the direct responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary, but I give notice that I shall raise these matters elsewhere on behalf of my constituents. In the meantime, I ask for an answer on the other questions from the Ministry of Power because, as I understand, the Minister has a particular responsibility under the Act of Parliament which established it for mineral deposits. In the present conditions, which are half-way between nationalisation and denationalisation, he has also a rather looser responsibility for the affairs of the iron and steel industry generally.

9.3 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) has raised an important constituency point very moderately and


reasonably and, in the course of his remarks, has touched upon one or two wider matters. I am not referring to the last part of his speech, which, as he says, does not concern my Department, but to one or two wider matters, with which I will deal very shortly, arising out of the present organisation of the steel industry compared with the organisation before the passing of the Act.
I should like to begin by dealing as far as I can with one or two of the specific points which he raised. I do not think one need attach too much importance to this, but I should mention, to avoid misunderstanding, that the hon. Member made the point that the ore in Cleveland is low in iron content but that most of the other home ores were also low in iron content. He asked, therefore, why that should be a cause of complaint about this field. While it is true that, broadly speaking, our home ores are of lower iron content than the imported ores, it is by no means true that they are all dear. I am advised that for a given metal content the Cleveland iron ore is far and away the most expensive of any ore used in British industry, either from home sources or from abroad. The hon. Gentleman did not rest on that point, but I think that that does dispose of it.
The hon. Gentleman asked me who took the decision and the initiative in this matter. I think he will agree that it would not be desirable to disclose the exact process within the industry, but it is a fact that the Board—I shall have something to say about it in a moment—felt that this situation involving a continuing, subsidy called for reconsideration. The Federation, the organisation of the producers, which manages the fund provided by the industry out of which the subsidy was paid, did reconsider it, and came to the conclusion that the thing was becoming quite uneconomic. The Board agreed that the situation was such that the subsidy should be discontinued. I think that that makes the procedure plain.
For the record, I ought to make it clear that this is not Government money. It is the industry's own money which it pays in to the fund for all sorts of purposes. Very large sums are involved, running into many millions a year. Out of the fund, among other much larger

expenses, this substantial subsidy was paid. It is the industry's own money. Nevertheless, as the Government appoint the Board, they must, under the Act, take full responsibility for the view that the public interest, through the Board, is preserved in considerations of this kind. I repeat that both the Board and the Federation which administers the fund on behalf of the contributing companies were of the opinion that the subsidy was no longer appropriate and should be discontinued.
Paraphrasing the hon. Gentleman's words, he then put the question that, even if all this were true, why should it be done now? He was good enough to refer, in a quite friendly way, to views which I quite admit I hold about the desirability of subsidies generally. As he referred to me, I think that it is fair to talk to him, in a friendly way, and say that, of course, this is one of the reasons that I consider that subsidies are, prima facie, a dangerous and doubtful expedient which we sometimes have to put up with. When is the right time to remove a subsidy? When do constituency Members come along and say, "A subsidy is paid in my constituency and I think it ought to be discontinued"? It is not in human nature. It never is the right time to take away a subsidy from one's constituency. Nobody in my constituency, unfortunately, receives a subsidy, but I am quite sure that, if we had one, I should be as bad as the hon. Gentleman if it came to proposing that it should be removed.
There is another answer to the question "Why now"? These fields are not only uneconomic, but they are becoming progressively more so. The hon. Gentleman, very fairly, did not press strongly for details about the extent of the subsidy. He fully appreciates that these are commercial matters in a highly competitive industry, and it would not be in the interests of the industry or the public to go into £ s. d. I can, however, tell him that it is a substantial sum, not a matter of 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. difference in the cost of the ore and the cost of alternative supplies, either from abroad or from home sources. It is a very substantial difference, and, in the opinion of all concerned, it has become no longer appropriate, when cheaper and better—the main point is cheaper—supplies of home ore, quite apart from imported ore, are


available in ample quantity. In effect, it would mean going out of our way, at a time when steel is in a very competitive position, to dig up iron ore where it is dear at the expense of other British people digging up exactly the same quantity of ore in other British mines where it is cheaper. That is the short answer.

Mr. Palmer: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not overlook the real point which I made there—that if this subsidy had to come off, surely it should not come off at a time when unemployment is generally advancing in the area.

Sir I. Horobin: We have to consider the position of the industry as a whole. We have to consider the national interest in this. We have to consider whether the steel industry, which is fighting a very fierce competitive battle at the present moment, should at this time go out of its way to get expensive raw materials, when it can get cheap raw materials That may not appeal to the hon. Member as conclusive, but that is the argument which both the Iron and Steel Board and the Iron and Steel Federation accepted.

Mr. George Lawson: Is it not the case that, while this may be a small matter to the industry, it is a very large matter to my hon. Friend's constituency?

Sir I. Horobin: It is not a small matter. It is not a matter of 1 or 2 per cent. in the cost of this raw material. This ore is very much more expensive than alternative available supplies.

Mr. Lawson: Is it not the case that the costs are pooled, so that the cost of this ore is spread over the whole industry, and, in that sense, the matter is a small one?

Sir I. Horobin: I do not think that position arises. We must consider that, whoever pays this, it is money wasted as far as the industry is concerned, because the industry could get exactly the same raw material a lot cheaper. Somebody, somewhere, would be able to quote a cheaper price and perhaps get an order which otherwise we would get. I must leave it there. It is always tempting to say: "It is a little matter; let us have

a rather more expensive this or that; put these factories in the wrong place." We are having that kind of argument pushed at us all the time, but, in the long run, if we pile up all this additional economic waste, we end up with an uneconomic industry, instead of an economic one, and that is not in the national interest. It is not in the national interest that we should saddle the steel industry with this avoidable expense at this time. Though that argument may not appeal to the hon. Member, I can only say that it is the argument which convinced both the Federation and the Iron and Steel Board.
I want to make it quite clear, in reference to what the hon. Gentleman said, that there is no truth at all in any suggestion—which I do not think he made, but rather asked whether there had been—that there had been some sort of tussle between the producing firms which wanted to do this and the Iron and Steel Board, which had to accept defeat. This has been wholly agreed by both sides of the industry.
In conclusion, I want to deal with the slightly more general point, which the hon. Member suggested arises out of this question of a possible tussle, whether the national interest has been properly considered under the present organisation of the industry. Obviously, we cannot go into a general discussion of the iron and steel industry, or nationalisation and denationalisation, but it was a perfectly valid point which the hon. Member made, and I should like to say something about it.
Let us suppose that this situation had arisen before the last Act was passed, when we had the Iron and Steel Corporation for the industry. That Corporation was under a statutory obligation—a quite definite obligation—as regards ore to promote an efficient, economic and adequate supply under competitive conditions. Who would have had to decide on that? The Minister would have had no powers. There are powers of general direction which, as we all know, are quite inappropriate and could not possibly be applied, and, could never have been applied, in industries still nationalised, to this kind of consideration.
Therefore, the thing would have been decided in an honest attempt to settle the national interest by the Corporation as


it has now been by the Board. It is an interesting point that on the Corporation there was only one trade union member, and on the Board there are three. I am sure that the hon. Member would not suggest that it is only trade union members who would consider the effect of all: his on the livelihood of employees, because relations in the steel industry are a model, we all agree, to British industry.
But it would still be trade union representatives who would perhaps feel special responsibility. I put it no higher. And as against one, there are three on the Board, including the former General Secretary of the National Union of Blast Furnacernen, Ore Miners, Coke Workers and Kindred Trades. I do not think, therefore, that this decision would have been any different. The Minister could not have intervened. It would have been decided by the Corporation carrying out its statutory duties to promote efficient and economic supply.
I see no reason at all to suppose that the Corporation would have taken any other decision than did the Board in its honest judgment. Of the two, if anything, the new Board has a stronger trade union representation, but each applied its mind to the problem and, rightly or wrongly, having been set by Parliament to safeguard the national interest, have come to this conclusion.

Mr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman would not wish now to enter into a broad discussion or general debate about the merits of nationalisation of industry as against this more recent arrangement, but does he suggest that this matter was really discussed by the Iron and Steel Board meeting as a board? Does he suggest that the trade union representatives—and I know that they must take the responsibility—have had a full opportunity of looking at all the implications of the board meeting?

Sir I. Horobin: It would be improper for me to interfere, let alone disclose, exactly what the Board did, but it is responsible and it approved and, as far as initiative came from anybody, it took the initiative. It was the Board which said that the thing should be looked at,

and it is the Board that has agreed and approved. Therefore, without discussing which is the better organisation, the only point that I am making to reassure the hon. Member and his constituents, who naturally must take a keen interest in this, is that this is not a case of a few firms feeling the draught, if I may put it that way, and looking round for something on which they could save a little money and, being entirely oblivious to the wider issues involved, doing what they liked without consulting or obtaining the approval of anybody.
This, rightly or wrongly, was a considered opinion of what is in the best interests of the country and of the steel industry generally. The Board may be wrong and the Federation may be wrong, but they are responsible people. The hon. Member knows the position of the Iron and Steel Board and the people in the Federation. They have come to the conclusion that there must be a time when one can no longer reasonably go on carrying the "dregs", if I may so describe it, of a very large and expensive field. The only thing I would add to that is that, without encouraging any illusions, for this field is coming to an end, it is fair to remind the hon. Member that for the moment at any rate over five-sixths of the production is going on, and the Skinningrove production was only a small proportion of the total.

Mr. Palmer: Short time.

Sir I. Horobin: I want to make it clear that I am holding out no promises of what will happen. On the question of time, at the moment the majority are going on, but this is a field which has little future. I am advised that great efforts have been made in recent years to see if they could cheapen or improve the use of this ore to make it more economic. However, all the best advice available in the industry is that it is coming to the end of its life. It is an extractive industry which is becoming increasingly, and will become completely, uneconomic, and we must face that fact.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Nine o'clock.